[Crisis situations: Ethical reflection on prioritization of care access in radiation oncology]

Understood as a disruption of the conditions of care practice according to established protocols or procedures, crisis situations in radiation oncology departments can have multiple causes. Their seriousness can sometimes impose changes in the decision-making, organizational or technical paradigms. A possible consequence may be the need to make prioritization decisions in access to care, when there is a mismatch between the care needs of a population and the available health resources (whether technical or human). The specificities of care pathways and the wide variety of clinical situations in radiation oncology make these ethical decisions particularly difficult. Anticipation, collegial and multi-professional decision-making procedures or the integration of patient representatives in these prioritization processes are essential tools. Particular attention must be paid to the information to be provided to patients in a concern of transparency and respect. Prioritization situations are real tests for our departments. They go beyond the purely technical aspect of radiation oncology. They can lead to real ethical suffering for health professionals when their values come up against the limits imposed by crisis situations.

[Prioritization of risk situations in neuro-urology: Guidelines based on the Delphi method from Association française d'urologie (AFU), Association francophone internationale des groupes d'animation de la paraplégie (AFIGAP), Groupe de neuro-urologie de langue française (GENULF), Société française de médecine physique et de réadaptation (SOFMER) and Société interdisciplinaire francophone d'urodynamique et de pelvi-périnéologie (SIFUD-PP)]

PURPOSE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a care reorganization was mandatory, and affected patients in different areas, including management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. This work aims to provide validated schedule concerning the assessment and management of patients in neuro-urology.

METHODS

Based on a literature review and their own expertise, a steering committee composed of urologists and physical medicine and rehabilitation practitioners generated a comprehensive risk-situation list and built a risk scale. A panel of French-speaking experts in neuro-urology was asked to define the timing for each clinical situation and validated these new recommendations through a Delphi process approach.

RESULTS

The 49 experts included in the rating group validated 163 propositions among the 206 initial items. The propositions were divided into four domains - diagnosis and assessment, treatment, follow-up, and complications - and two sub-domains - general (applicable for all neurological conditions) and condition-specific (varying according to the neurological condition (spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, Parkinsonism, spinal dysraphism, lower motor neuron lesions)).

CONCLUSIONS

This multidisciplinary collaborative work generates recommendations based on expert opinion, providing a validated timing for assessment and management of patients in neuro-urology which may help clinicians to reorganize their patients' list with a personalized medicine approach, in a context of health crisis or not.