Ethics and severe pandemic influenza: maintaining essential functions through a fair and considered response

Ethical values and principles to guide the fair allocation of resources in response to a pandemic: a rapid systematic review

Background

The coronavirus 2019 pandemic placed unprecedented pressures on healthcare services and magnified ethical dilemmas related to how resources should be allocated. These resources include, among others, personal protective equipment, personnel, life-saving equipment, and vaccines. Decision-makers have therefore sought ethical decision-making tools so that resources are distributed both swiftly and equitably. To support the development of such a decision-making tool, a systematic review of the literature on relevant ethical values and principles was undertaken. The aim of this review was to identify ethical values and principles in the literature which relate to the equitable allocation of resources in response to an acute public health threat, such as a pandemic.

Methods

A rapid systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LitCOVID and relevant reference lists. The time period of the search was January 2000 to 6th April 2020, and the search was restricted to human studies. January 2000 was selected as a start date as the aim was to capture ethical values and principles within acute public health threat situations. No restrictions were made with regard to language. Ethical values and principles were extracted and examined thematically.

Results

A total of 1,618 articles were identified. After screening and application of eligibility criteria, 169 papers were included in the thematic synthesis. The most commonly mentioned ethical values and principles were: Equity, reciprocity, transparency, justice, duty to care, liberty, utility, stewardship, trust and proportionality. In some cases, ethical principles were conflicting, for example, Protection of the Public from Harm and Liberty.

Conclusions

Allocation of resources in response to acute public health threats is challenging and must be simultaneously guided by many ethical principles and values. Ethical decision-making strategies and the prioritisation of different principles and values needs to be discussed with the public in order to prepare for future public health threats. An evidence-based tool to guide decision-makers in making difficult decisions is required. The equitable allocation of resources in response to an acute public health threat is challenging, and many ethical principles may be applied simultaneously. An evidence-based tool to support difficult decisions would be helpful to guide decision-makers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00806-8.

Constructing an ethical framework for priority allocation of pandemic vaccines

Background

Allocation of scarce resources during a pandemic extends to the allocation of vaccines when they eventually become available. We describe a framework for priority vaccine allocation that employed a cross-disciplinary approach, guided by ethical considerations and informed by local risk assessment.

Methods

Published and grey literature was reviewed, and augmented by consultation with key informants, to collate past experience, existing guidelines and emerging strategies for pandemic vaccine deployment. Identified ethical issues and decision-making processes were also included. Concurrently, simulation modelling studies estimated the likely impacts of alternative vaccine allocation approaches. Assembled evidence was presented to a workshop of national experts in pandemic preparedness, vaccine strategy, implementation and ethics. All of this evidence was then used to generate a proposed ethical framework for vaccine priorities best suited to the Australian context.

Findings

Published and emerging guidance for priority pandemic vaccine distribution differed widely with respect to strategic objectives, specification of target groups, and explicit discussion of ethical considerations and decision-making processes. Flexibility in response was universally emphasised, informed by real-time assessment of the pandemic impact level, and identification of disproportionately affected groups. Model outputs aided identification of vaccine approaches most likely to achieve overarching goals in pandemics of varying transmissibility and severity. Pandemic response aims deemed most relevant for an Australian framework were: creating and maintaining trust, promoting equity, and reducing harmful outcomes.

Interpretation

Defining clear and ethically-defendable objectives for pandemic response in context aids development of flexible and adaptive decision support frameworks and facilitates clear communication and engagement activities.

The prevalence of asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 as determined by routine preoperative testing

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has swiftly spread throughout the globe, greatly influencing all aspects of life. As in previous pandemics, concerns for limited resources and a sustainable medical workforce have been on the forefront of infrastructure modifications. Consequently, surgical specialties have needed to consider each surgical case for necessity and safety during the COVID-19 outbreak. At our institution, availability of SARS-CoV-2 assay has allowed preoperative testing of asymptomatic surgical patients.

AIM/OBJECTIVE

To better define the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers in a surgical population and to better understand the impact of testing on our personal protective equipment (PPE) supply.

METHODS

We began routine, preoperative testing for all asymptomatic patients coming to our academic medical centre on 30 March 2020. Scheduled surgeries were deemed urgent by the surgeon with a review for appropriateness by a novel surgical committee. A retrospective patient chart review was performed. Emergency surgeries were excluded. Asymptomatic patients with positive test results had their surgeries rescheduled at the discretion of the surgeon and patient. Patients who tested negative underwent surgery with staff using standard PPE.

RESULTS

Eighty-four asymptomatic surgical patients were tested preoperatively with three (3.6%) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Preoperative testing saved 498 N95 respirators over this time period.

DISCUSSION

This is the first report of routine COVID-19 preoperative testing in an asymptomatic surgical population. Within this population, there is a 3.6% rate of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. Through this practice, personnel exposure can be minimised and access to PPE can be preserved.

Measuring Italian citizens' engagement in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic containment measures: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

In January 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started to spread in Italy. The Italian government adopted urgent measures to slow its spread. Enforcing compliance with such measures is crucial in order to enhance their effectiveness. Engaging citizens in the COVID-19 preventive process is urgent today both in Italy and around the world. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have investigated the role of health engagement in predicting citizens' compliance with health emergency containment measures.

METHOD

An online survey was administered between February 28 and March 4, 2020 on a representative sample of 1000 Italians. The questionnaire included a measure of health engagement (Patient Health Engagement Scale), a 5-item Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7, resulting in 4 positions that describe the psychological readiness to be active in one's own health management, and a series of ad hoc items intended to measure citizens' perceived susceptibility and severity of the disease, orientation towards health management, trust in institutional bodies, health habits and food consumption. To investigate the relationship between health engagement and these variables, ANOVA analysis, logistic regression and contingency tables with Pearson's chi-squared analysis have been carried out.

RESULTS

Less engaged people show higher levels of perceived susceptibility to the virus and severity of the disease; they are less trustful of scientific and healthcare authorities, they feel less self-effective in managing their own health-both in normal conditions and under stress-and are less prone to cooperate with healthcare professionals. Low levels of health engagement also are associated with a change in the usual purchase behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

The Patient Health Engagement model (PHE) provides a useful framework for understanding how people will respond to health threats such as pandemics. Therefore, intervention studies should focus on raising their levels of engagement to increase the effectiveness of educational initiatives intended to promote preventive behaviors.

Prioritising access to pandemic influenza vaccine: a review of the ethics literature

Background

The world is threatened by future pandemics. Vaccines can play a key role in preventing harm, but there will inevitably be shortages because there is no possibility of advance stockpiling. We therefore need some method of prioritising access.

Main text

This paper reports a critical interpretative review of the published literature that discusses ethical arguments used to justify how we could prioritise vaccine during an influenza pandemic. We found that the focus of the literature was often on proposing different groups as priorities (e.g. those with pre-existing health conditions, the young, the old, health care workers etc.). Different reasons were often suggested as a means of justifying such priority groupings (e.g. appeal to best overall outcomes, fairness, belonging to a vulnerable or ‘at risk’ group etc.). We suggest that much of the literature, wrongly, assumes that we are able to plan priority groups prior to the time of a particular pandemic and development of a particular vaccine. We also point out the surprising absence of various issues from the literature (e.g. how vaccines fit within overall pandemic planning, a lack of specificity about place, issues of global justice etc.).

Conclusions

The literature proposes a wide range of ways to prioritise vaccines, focusing on different groups and ‘principles’. Any plan to use pandemic vaccine must provide justifications for its prioritisation. The focus of this review was influenza pandemic vaccines, but lessons can be learnt for future allocations of coronavirus vaccine, if one becomes available.

A Framework for Training Public Health Practitioners in Crisis Decision-Making

Three sets of issues tend to be overlooked in public health emergency preparedness and response, which can be addressed with new training protocols. The first issue is procedural and concerns the often intuitive (as opposed to deliberative) nature of effective crisis decision-making. The second issue is substantive and pertains to the incorporation and prioritization of ethical, political, and logistical concerns in public health emergency guidelines. The third issue is affective and concerns human feelings and human frailty, which can derail the most well designed and best practiced procedural and substantive approaches to emergency response. This article offers an outline for a decision-making framework for public health emergencies that addresses and incorporates these issues within relevant guidelines and training.

Lay people's interpretation of ethical values related to mass vaccination; the case of A(H1N1) vaccination campaign in the province of Quebec (French Canada)

BACKGROUND

Pandemic influenza ethics frameworks are based on respect of values and principles such as regard for autonomy, responsibility, transparency, solidarity and social justice. However, very few studies have addressed the way in which the general population views these moral norms.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To analyse the receptiveness of the population of French-speaking Quebecers to certain ethical principles promoted by public health authorities during the AH1N1 vaccination campaign. (ii) To add to the limited number of empirical studies that examine the population's perception of ethical values.

DESIGN

Eight months after the end of the AH1N1 vaccination campaign in the Province of Quebec (Canada), 100 French-speaking Quebecers were assembled in ten focus groups. Discussions focussed on the level of respect shown by public health authorities for individual autonomy, the limits of appeals for solidarity, the balance between vaccination efficiency and social justice towards non-prioritized subpopulations, vaccination as a demonstration of civic duty and social responsibility.

RESULTS

The population acknowledged a high level of individual responsibility towards family members and agreed to vaccination to protect children and ageing parents. However, the concepts of civic duty and solidarity did not elucidate unanimous support, despite the fact that social justice stood out as a dominant value of public morals.

CONCLUSION

The ethical principles promoted in influenza pandemic ethics frameworks are subject to reinterpretation by the population. An ethic of public health must consider their understanding of the fundamental values that legitimize mass vaccination.

Willingness of the local health department workforce to respond to infectious disease events: empirical, ethical, and legal considerations

According to the Institute of Medicine, the local health department workforce is at the hub of the public health emergency preparedness system. A growing body of research has pointed to troubling attitudinal gaps among local health department workers, a vital response cohort, regarding willingness to respond to emergent infectious disease threats, ranging from naturally occurring pandemics to bioterrorism events. A summary of relevant literature on the empirical evidence, ethical norms, and legal standards applicable to the willingness of public health professionals to respond to an infectious disease emergency is presented. Recommendations are proposed for future work to be done to bring the relevant empirical, ethical, and legal considerations together to develop practical guidance for the local response to infectious disease emergencies.

Pilot-testing an applied competency-based approach to health human resources planning

A competency-based approach to health human resources (HHR) planning is one that explicitly considers the spectrum of knowledge, skills and judgement (competencies) required for the health workforce based on the health needs of the relevant population in some specific circumstances. Such an approach is of particular benefit to planners challenged to make optimal use of limited HHR as it allows them to move beyond simply estimating numbers of certain professionals required and plan instead according to the unique mix of competencies available from the existing health workforce. This kind of flexibility is particularly valuable in contexts where healthcare providers are in short supply generally (e.g. in many developing countries) or temporarily due to a surge in need (e.g. a pandemic or other disease outbreak). A pilot application of this approach using the context of an influenza pandemic in one health district of Nova Scotia, Canada, is described, and key competency gaps identified. The approach is also being applied using other conditions in other Canadian jurisdictions and in Zambia.

Immunization against A/H1N1 pandemic flu (2009-2010) in pediatric patients at risk. What might be the most effective strategy? The experience of an health district of Northern Italy

Background

Vaccination coverage rates against pandemic flu were far below those required by Italian Public Health Authorities.

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess how the management of vaccination against pandemic flu in the Health District of Piacenza (Northern Italy) had conditioned the adherence of patients at risk to the H1N1flu immunization program.

Methods

From a population of 27.018 children aged between 6 months and 16 years, 2361 pediatric patients considered at risk according to the guidelines of the Ministry of Health were enrolled to receive pandemic flu vaccination.

Children enrolled in the immunization program were vaccinated with one of the following three options:

A) by their pediatrician in his office after contacting him directly or by phone

B) by their pediatrician in his office or in a public Health District office with the assistance of a nurse after an appointment had been booked by patient’s parents using a dedicated free of charge phone number

C) by a doctor of the public Health District after an appointment had been booked as for option B

Results

The best outcomes of population vaccination coverage for pandemic flu were achieved when patients were vaccinated with option B (44.2%). For options A and C rates coverage results were 22.8% (OR 2,69) and 24.9% (OR 2, 39) respectively.

Conclusion

The results of this study may be taken into account by the public health Authorities when planning the management of future immunization campaigns out of the usual vaccination schedule or in an emergency event.

Resource allocation after a nuclear detonation incident: unaltered standards of ethical decision making

This article provides practical ethical guidance for clinicians making decisions after a nuclear detonation, in advance of the full establishment of a coordinated response. We argue that the utilitarian maxim of the greatest good for the greatest number, interpreted only as "the most lives saved," needs refinement. We take the philosophical position that utilitarian efficiency should be tempered by the principle of fairness in making decisions about providing lifesaving interventions and palliation. The most practical way to achieve these goals is to mirror the ethical precepts of routine clinical practice, in which 3 factors govern resource allocation: order of presentation, patient's medical need, and effectiveness of an intervention. Although these basic ethical standards do not change, priority is given in a crisis to those at highest need in whom interventions are expected to be effective. If available resources will not be effective in meeting the need, then it is unfair to expend them and they should be allocated to another patient with high need and greater expectation for survival if treated. As shortage becomes critical, thresholds for intervention become more stringent. Although the focus of providers will be on the victims of the event, the needs of patients already receiving care before the detonation also must be considered. Those not allocated intervention must still be provided as much appropriate comfort, assistance, relief of symptoms, and explanations as possible, given the available resources. Reassessment of patients' clinical status and priority for intervention also should be conducted with regularity.

Developing policy options for SARS and SARS-like diseases - a Delphi study

The objective of the SARSControl Delphi study was to develop options for national and international emerging infectious diseases policies. The aim of this paper is to present the results of the study, which gathered expert opinions on gaps and inconsistencies concerning preparedness and response planning for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and SARS-like diseases. The Delphi technique was employed, which comprised a pilot round, two written rounds and a face-to-face meeting. The Delphi panel consisted of 38 experts from 22 countries, who highlighted the necessity to test plans and stressed the importance of surveillance measures for the swift containment of communicable disease outbreaks and the inclusion of detailed triage plans in national pandemic plans. The experts also suggested a need to define criteria for testing pandemic preparedness plans at different regional levels. New policy alternatives were identified, such as the need for generic plans on pandemics and universal access to healthcare during an outbreak. The usefulness of some non-medical interventions, such as bans on travel, could not be established and need further research. Dissemination of the findings will help to bridge gaps and rectify inconsistencies in current pandemic planning and response strategies for SARS and SARS-like diseases, as well as add valuable knowledge towards the development of national and international emerging infectious disease policies.

Facilitating hospital emergency preparedness: introduction of a model memorandum of understanding

Effective emergency response among hospitals and other health care providers stems from multiple factors depending on the nature of the emergency. While local emergencies can test hospital acute care facilities, prolonged national emergencies, such as the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, raise significant challenges. These events involve sustained surges of patients over longer periods and spanning entire regions. They require significant and sustained coordination of personnel, services, and supplies among hospitals and other providers to ensure adequate patient care across regions. Some hospitals, however, may lack structural principles to help coordinate care and guide critical allocation decisions. This article discusses a model Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that sets forth essential principles on how to allocate scarce resources among providers across regions. The model seeks to align regional hospitals through advance agreements on procedures of mutual aid that reflect modern principles of emergency preparedness and changing legal norms in declared emergencies.

Convalescent transfusion for pandemic influenza: preparing blood banks for a new plasma product?

Due to the potential of a severe pandemic to limit efficacy or availability of medical countermeasures, some researchers have begun a search for new interventions that could complement the planned antiviral‐ and vaccine‐based response to an influenza pandemic. One such countermeasure—the transfusion of pandemic influenza‐specific antibodies from surviving patients to the clinically ill—is the focus of this commentary. Passive immunotherapy, which includes the use of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), hyperimmune globulin, or convalescent plasma, had been used before the advent of antibiotics and has recently reentered the limelight due to the accelerating development of MoAb therapies against cancer, a number of microbes, allograft rejection, and a host of other conditions. After the plausible biologic mechanism and somewhat limited data supporting the efficacy for this modality against influenza are reviewed, safety and logistical concerns for utilization of this potential new product (fresh convalescent plasma against influenza [FCP‐Flu]) are discussed. FCP‐Flu could indeed prove useful in a response to a pandemic, but two necessary items must first be satisfied. Most importantly, more research should be conducted to establish FCP‐Flu efficacy against the current and other pandemic strains. Second, and also importantly, blood banks and donor centers should examine whether offering this new product would be feasible in a pandemic and begin planning before a more severe pandemic forces us to respond without adequate preparation.

Bacterial pneumonias during an influenza pandemic: how will we allocate antibiotics?

We are currently in the midst of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and a second wave of flu in the fall and winter could lead to more hospitalizations for pneumonia. Recent pathologic and historic data from the 1918 influenza pandemic confirms that many, if not most, of the deaths in that pandemic were a result of secondary bacterial pneumonias. This means that a second wave of 2009 H1N1 pandemic influenza could result in a widespread shortage of antibiotics, making these medications a scarce resource. Recently, our University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) Scarce Resource Allocation Committee (SRAC) added antibiotics to a list of resources (including ventilators, antivirals, vaccines) that might become scarce during an influenza pandemic. In this article, we summarize the data on bacterial pneumonias during the 1918 influenza pandemic, discuss the possible impact of a pandemic on the University of Michigan Health System, and summarize our committee's guiding principles for allocating antibiotics during a pandemic.

Avian flu pandemic - flight of the healthcare worker?

BACKGROUND

One of the ethical issues identified in response to a possible pandemic is healthcare workers' duty to provide care during a communicable disease outbreak. Healthcare employees may be subject to a variety of work obligations under such conditions. Questions of duty to treat remain controversial, and debate continues as to the ethical articulation of a duty to treat. This study aimed to investigate opinions from healthcare workers themselves on the perceived duty to treat, and how they might respond to a severe avian flu pandemic.

METHODS

Using system-wide e-mail, we surveyed employees at our rural tertiary/quaternary care health system regarding their knowledge of our institution's pandemic planning policy and their willingness to work in the event of a virulent avian pandemic.

RESULTS

Results (N=908) show that employees felt a responsibility for"duty to care." Over 60% disagreed that it was ethical to abandon the workplace during a pandemic. However, opinions also stated that employees wanted autonomy to decide whether or not to work (65%). When asked about volunteering, 79% would agree to volunteer, given some incentives and protective options, the most salient being protective equipment (with relative training for use) and infectious disease training.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research demonstrated that the healthcare workers a tour institution voiced an earnest willingness to work in the event of an avian flu pandemic, if provided with the necessary input, protections and tools, and education. The use of an electronic methodology for dissemination of surveys allowed the low-cost solicitation of information from a vast proportion of the workforce with ease, providing the institutional ethics committee with the empirical data needed to articulate more meaningful,thoughtful, and robust suggestions for ethical pandemic planning.

"Listen to the people": public deliberation about social distancing measures in a pandemic

Public engagement in ethically laden pandemic planning decisions may be important for transparency, creating public trust, improving compliance with public health orders, and ultimately, contributing to just outcomes. We conducted focus groups with members of the public to characterize public perceptions about social distancing measures likely to be implemented during a pandemic. Participants expressed concerns about job security and economic strain on families if businesses or school closures are prolonged. They shared opposition to closure of religious organizations, citing the need for shared support and worship during times of crises. Group discussions elicited evidence of community-mindedness (e.g., recognition of an extant duty not to infect others), while some also acknowledged strong self-interest. Participants conveyed desire for opportunities for public input and education, and articulated distrust of government. Social distancing measures may be challenging to implement and sustain due to strains on family resources and lack of trust in government.