Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) faced substantial psychological pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence from Indian tertiary care settings during the acute phase of the outbreak remains limited. This study examined the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among doctors and nurses at a New Delhi tertiary care hospital during the early pandemic period. Methods An anonymous, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 100 HCWs (84 doctors, 16 nurses) at Moolchand Hospital, New Delhi. The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) was used to quantify psychological morbidity. Sociodemographic and occupational data, including infection-control training adequacy, trust in personal protective equipment (PPE) supply, and perceived social support, were collected via a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the cohort and the prevalence of psychological symptoms. Results The cohort comprised 53 (53.0%) male and 47 (47.0%) female participants; the majority (40, 40.0%) were aged 31-40 years. Anxiety was the most prevalent psychological outcome (65, 65.0%), followed by depression (20, 20.0%) and stress (15, 15.0%). Insomnia was the most frequently reported individual symptom (43, 43.0%). Participants commonly reported inadequate infection control training, limited trust in PPE adequacy, and self-imposed isolation from family members to reduce transmission risk. Fear of infecting family members and perceived stigma were recurrent qualitative themes. Conclusions Psychological morbidity, particularly anxiety, was highly prevalent among doctors and nurses at a New Delhi tertiary hospital during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Modifiable factors such as infection control training, PPE provision, and social support emerged as important considerations for institutional response. These findings contribute to the evidence base informing mental health preparedness frameworks for future infectious disease outbreaks, particularly in lower-middle-income country settings.
Khan et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: