Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences

Moral distress among physicians in Norway: a longitudinal study

OBJECTIVES

To explore and compare physicians' reported moral distress in 2004 and 2021 and identify factors that could be related to these responses.

DESIGN

Longitudinal survey.

SETTING

Data were gathered from the Norwegian Physician Panel Study, a representative sample of Norwegian physicians, conducted in 2004 and 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

1499 physicians in 2004 and 2316 physicians in 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The same survey instrument was used to measure change in moral distress from 2004 to 2021. Logistic regression analyses examined the role of gender, age and place of work.

RESULTS

Response rates were 67% (1004/1499) in 2004 and 71% (1639/2316) in 2021. That patient care is deprived due to time constraints is the most severe dimension of moral distress among physicians, and it has increased as 68.3% reported this 'somewhat' or 'very morally distressing' in 2004 compared with 75.1% in 2021. Moral distress also increased concerning that patients who 'cry the loudest' get better and faster treatment than others. Moral distress was reduced on statements about long waiting times, treatment not provided due to economic limitations, deprioritisation of older patients and acting against one's conscience. Women reported higher moral distress than men at both time points, and there were significant gender differences for six statements in 2021 and one in 2004. Age and workplace influenced reported moral distress, though not consistently for all statements.

CONCLUSION

In 2004 and 2021 physicians' moral distress related to scarcity of time or unfair distribution of resources was high. Moral distress associated with resource scarcity and acting against one's conscience decreased, which might indicate improvements in the healthcare system. On the other hand, it might suggest that physicians have reduced their ideals or expectations or are morally fatigued.

Stretching oneself too thin and facing ethical challenges: Healthcare professionals' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUNDS

Most countries are facing increased pressure on healthcare resources. A better understanding of how healthcare providers respond to new demands is relevant for future pandemics and other crises.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore what nurses and doctors in Norway reported as their main ethical challenges during two periods of the COVID-19 pandemic: February 2021 and February 2022.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A longitudinal repeated cross-sectional study was conducted in the Western health region of Norway. The survey included an open-ended question about ethical challenges among doctors and nurses in hospital departments. Free-text comments were analysed using Systematic Text Condensation and also presented in a frequency table.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical approval was granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131,421). All participants provided consent when participating in the study.

RESULTS

In 2021, 249 and in 2022, 163 healthcare professionals responded to the open-ended question. Nurses and doctors reported three main categories of ethical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) barriers that hindered them in acting as they ethically would have wanted to do; (2) priority-setting dilemmas linked to overtreatment, transfer of resources and ranking patient needs; and (3) workload expansion threatening work-life balance and employees' health. Category one comprised of resource barriers, regulatory barriers, system barriers, and personal barriers. Regulatory barriers, especially visitor restrictions for next-of-kin, were the most frequently reported in 2021. Resource barriers, related to the increased scarcity of qualified staff, were most frequently reported in 2022. Clinicians stretched themselves thin to avoid compromising on care, diagnostics, or treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing clinicians' ability to handle and cope with limited healthcare resources is necessary. To foster resilience and sustainability, healthcare leaders, in collaboration with their staff, should ensure fair priority-setting and initiate reflections among doctors and nurses on what it implies to provide 'good enough' care.

COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better

BACKGROUND

When conducting COVID-19 contact tracing, pre-defined criteria allow differentiating high-risk contacts (HRC) from low-risk contacts (LRC). Our study aimed to evaluate whether contact tracers in Belgium followed these criteria in practice and whether their deviations improved the infection risk assessment.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Belgium, through an anonymous online survey, sent to 111,763 workers by email. First, we evaluated the concordance between the guideline-based classification of HRC or LRC and the tracer's classification. We computed positive and negative agreements between both. Second, we used a multivariate Poisson regression to calculate the risk ratio (RR) of testing positive depending on the risk classification by the contact tracer and by the guideline-based risk classification.

RESULTS

For our first research question, we included 1105 participants. The positive agreement between the guideline-based classification in HRC or LRC and the tracer's classification was 0.53 (95% CI 0.49-0.57) and the negative agreement 0.70 (95% CI: 0.67-0.72). The type of contact tracer (occupational doctors, internal tracer, general practitioner, other) did not significantly influence the results. For the second research question, we included 589 participants. The RR of testing positive after an HRC compared to an LRC was 3.10 (95% CI: 2.71-3.56) when classified by the contact tracer and 2.24 (95% CI: 1.94-2.60) when classified by the guideline-based criteria.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that contact tracers did not apply pre-defined criteria for classifying high and low risk contacts. Risk stratification by contact tracers predicts who is at risk of infection better than guidelines only. This result indicates that a knowledgeable tracer can target testing better than a general guideline, asking for a debate on how to adapt the guidelines.

Resource allocation decisions under pandemic conditions: A cross-sectional survey of Ontario physicians

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced physicians to confront difficult choices regarding the allocation of scarce resources, such as ventilators and critical care beds. Developing policies to guide the allocation of such resources has proven challenging. An understanding of physicians' attitudes and beliefs surrounding resource allocation could help inform policymaking. As a replication and extension of a survey of Ottawa physicians conducted in 2020, we surveyed physicians across Ontario, Canada in April 2021. This survey examined physicians' sense of preparedness to allocate critical care resources during the pandemic, attitudes concerning resource allocation policy, and approaches to resource allocation decision-making. Of the 253 responses included for analysis, the majority (67%) of respondents indicated feeling "somewhat" or "a little prepared" to make resource allocation decisions, while 20% indicated feeling "not at all prepared." Most respondents (86%) agreed that a policy to guide resource allocation in the event of scarcity should exist. Physicians overwhelmingly agreed that important factors to consider when making resource allocation decisions included the patient likelihood of survival, frailty index, comorbidities, and cognitive status. Responses from the province-wide survey conducted in 2021 resemble the results of an analogous survey of Ottawa physicians conducted in 2020. Physicians generally felt underprepared to make resource allocation decisions and agreed that official policies should guide such decisions. Identification of factors relevant to resource allocation was remarkably consistent across this sample and that taken in 2020.