Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry.

Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting "Decisional Uncertainty" provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for "Decisional Conflicts" included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals.

Differences in Stakeholders' Perception of the Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Care and Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics are related to changes in clinical management. Factors that are associated with individual perceptions of related risks and decision-making processes focused on prevention and vaccination, but perceptions of other healthcare consequences are less investigated. Different perceptions of patients, nurses, and physicians on consequences regarding clinical management, decisional criteria, and burden were compared. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional OnCoVID questionnaire studies. METHODS: Data that involved 1231 patients, physicians, and nurses from 11 German institutions that were actively involved in clinical treatment or decision-making in oncology or psychiatry were collected. Multivariate statistical approaches were used to analyze the stakeholder comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 29.2% of professionals reported extensive changes in workload. Professionals in psychiatry returned severe impact of pandemic on all major aspects of their clinical care, but less changes were reported in oncology (p < 0.001). Both patient groups reported much lower recognition of treatment modifications and consequences for their own care. Decisional and pandemic burden was intensively attributed from professionals towards patients, but less in the opposite direction. CONCLUSIONS: All of the groups share concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare management and clinical processes, but to very different extent. The perception of changes is dissociated in projection towards other stakeholders. Specific awareness should avoid the dissociated impact perception between patients and professionals potentially resulting in impaired shared decision-making.

Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Patient Perspective.

(1) Background: Uncertainty is typical for a pandemic or similar healthcare crisis. This affects patients with resulting decisional conflicts and disturbed shared decision making during their treatment occurring to a very different extent. Sociodemographic factors and the individual perception of pandemic-related problems likely determine this decisional dilemma for patients and can characterize vulnerable groups with special susceptibility for decisional problems and related consequences. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional data from the OnCoVID questionnaire study were used involving 540 patients from 11 participating institutions covering all major regions in Germany. Participants were actively involved in clinical treatment in oncology or psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, perception of consequences for patients) and very basic demographic data (age, gender, stage of treatment and educational background). Decision uncertainties and distress were operationalized using equidistant five-point scales. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and various multivariate approaches. (3) Results: A total of 11.5% of all patients described intensive uncertainty in their clinical decisions that was significantly correlated with anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. Younger and female patients and those of higher educational status and treatment stage had the highest values for these stressors (p < 0.001). Only 15.3% of the patients (14.9% oncology, 16.2% psychiatry; p = 0.021) considered the additional risk of COVID-19 infections as very important for their disease-related decisions. Regression analysis identified determinants for patients at risk of a decisional dilemma, including information availability, educational level, age group and requirement of treatment decision making. (4) Conclusions: In patients, the COVID-19 pandemic induced specific decisional uncertainty and distress accompanied by intensified stress and psychological disturbances. Determinants of specific vulnerability were related to female sex, younger age, education level, disease stages and perception of pandemic-related treatment modifications, whereas availability of sufficient pandemic-related information prevented these problems. The most important decisional criteria for patients under these conditions were expected side effects/complications and treatment responses.

Trust in Healthcare during COVID-19 in Europe: vulnerable groups trust the least.

Aim: We examined predictors of trust in the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic in 27 European countries. Subjects and methods: We used population-based data drawn from the Living, working and COVID-19 survey (N = 21,884, 52% female, ages 18 to 92 years) covering 27 European countries dated June and July 2020. Multilevel linear regression, linear regression, and regression-tree analyses were conducted. Results: We found that most participants tended to trust the healthcare system, although a substantial part could still be classified as distrusting (approx. 21%). Multiple variables, including being middle-aged or of older age, being female, lower levels of education, unemployment, worse general health status, having income difficulties, having unmet needs for healthcare, no healthcare contact during the COVID-19 pandemic, higher mental distress, and loneliness, were significantly associated with lower levels of trust. Among these variables mental distress, income difficulties, and unmet needs for healthcare emerged as especially important and, across European regions and countries, consistent predictors for lower trust in the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Medically vulnerable subgroups, such as individuals with unmet healthcare needs, higher levels of mental distress, and older age, as well as people living in socially and economically vulnerable situations, such as higher levels of loneliness and financial difficulties, were the least trusting of the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic. As these vulnerable subgroups are also at highest risk for contracting COVID-19 and experiencing negative COVID-19-related outcomes, more targeted prevention and intervention efforts should be implemented in these groups. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-022-01705-3.

Patterns of Changes in Oncological Care due to COVID-19: Results of a Survey of Oncological Nurses and Physicians from the Region of Hanover, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare staff is confronted with intensive decisional conflicts during the pandemic. Due to the specific burden of this moral distress in oncology, the investigation aimed at quantification of these conflicts and identification of risk factors that determine the extent and severity of these conflicts. We examined the heterogeneity of changes in oncology care due to COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a survey of oncological physicians and nurses in the region of Hanover, Germany in the second half of 2020. Overall, N = 200 respondents, 54% nurses, were included in the sample. Indicators of changes in oncology care were used to determine profiles of changes. To characterize these profiles, a diverse set of variables, including decision conflicts, uncertainty, age, gender, work experience, changes in communication with patients, psychological distress, work stress, process organization, and personnel resources, was obtained. Latent class analysis was conducted to determine these latent profiles. RESULTS: We found that three distinct profiles best described the overall changes in oncology care due to COVID-19 in our sample, with each profile being associated with specific characteristics: (1) "Few Changes in Oncology Care" profile with 33% of participants belonging to this profile, (2) "Medium Changes in Oncology Care" profile with 43% of participants, and (3) "Severe Changes in Oncology Care" profile (24%). Participants from these profiles significantly differed regarding their age, work experience, occupational group, the prevalence of decision conflicts, decision uncertainty, quality of communication with patients, and quality of process organization. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct profiles of change in oncology care due to COVID-19 can be identified. Most participants reported small to medium changes, while some participants also reported severe changes. Profiles also differed regarding their associated characteristics. As such, specific consequences for better pandemic preparedness can be derived based on the current study. Future studies should investigate the patterns of changes in routine care due to COVID-19.