Should neurosurgeons continue to work in the absence of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 era?

Medical ethics and physician motivations

This paper provides an institutional economics framework for analyzing medical ethics. An ethical policy partitions the set of physician actions into (un)ethical subsets, with unethical actions then unavailable. Individual physicians' preferences over policies combined with a political process determine equilibrium constraints. I show that physicians' concern for colleagues' patients uniquely motivates their support for ethics which restrict behavior under strong assumptions. Without these assumptions, even identical physicians might ban actions they would otherwise select for reasons varying from protecting patients to differences in the costs of maintaining ethical policies. Interestingly, heightened altruism for colleagues' patients makes the former reasoning less credible. Novel applications for 'Provide Free Care to Physicians' and 'Duty to Treat in a Pandemic' demonstrate: (i) rising physician income can explain long-run weakening of both formal ethics in the United States; and (ii) the duty to treat can deteriorate as fewer physicians are required to improve pandemic outcomes.

Personal protective equipment availability and accessibility among nurses and midwives in selected urban general hospitals in Lusaka, Zambia: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic in January 2020, which has spread to many countries, including Zambia. Zambia has had challenges in providing personal protective equipment (PPEs) to nurses and midwives. The study's objective was to assess the availability and accessibility of PPEs among nurses and midwives caring for women in the general hospitals in Lusaka, Zambia.

Methods

a cross-sectional analytical study design was conducted at five general hospitals in Lusaka on 162 nurses and midwives between February and April 2021, selected by purposive sampling of study sites and simple random sampling to select the participants. Data was collected using a semi-structured self-administered questionnaire and analyzed in STATA version 13. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used to test associations between the independent variables and the outcome, and a multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the predictors of accessing PPEs.

Results

out of the 162 who participated in the study, 48.8% were nurses, while 51.2% were midwives. Only 10% (16/160) of the participants reported having enough PPEs at work. Age, marital status, PPE use, employment duration, and protection confidence were associated with accessibility (P<0.05).

Conclusion

overall, there was an inadequate provision of PPEs in the health facilities putting the nurses and midwives at a high risk of acquiring COVID-19. Policymakers need a deliberate move to make the availability and accessibility of PPEs a reality during the pandemic.