Telehealth in Orthopedic Sports Medicine: A Survey Study on Patient Satisfaction and Experience.

Background: Telehealth has seen breakthroughs in many fields of medicine, but utilization remains limited in orthopedic sports medicine. The purpose of this investigation was to compare patient satisfaction, duration of care, and overall patient experiences with telehealth and in-person clinical visits for sports-related injuries. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted at an orthopedic sports medicine clinic during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic between March and November 2020. Anonymous electronic surveys were used to record patient responses and statistical comparisons were drawn through two-sample t-tests. Results: A total of 175 patients (82 telehealth vs. 93 in-person) consented to participate in this investigation, and all were included in the final analysis. The overall composite satisfaction score, when compared between the two groups, did not differ (p = 0.63). Duration of care was significantly longer in the 93 patients who had in-person clinical visits as compared with the 82 patients who had telehealth visits (61/93: >31 min vs. 75/82: <30 min; p < 0.001). Finally, of the 82 patients who had telehealth, 3 respondents said they were "very unlikely" and "unlikely" to request another virtual clinical visit and/or recommend this mode of health care delivery to friends or family. Of the 93 patients had in-person clinical visits, only 15 respondents stated they were uninterested in telehealth under any circumstance. Conclusion: Most patients presenting to an orthopedic sports medicine clinic are open to telehealth, recognize its utility, and believe it to be just as comparable with in-person clinical visits. Level of Evidence: IV.

Roles of genetics and blood type in clinical responses to COVID-19: ethical and policy concerns.

Recently, several genetic variants have been associated with increased or decreased risks of becoming infected and/or seriously ill with COVID-19-not only offering important potential medical benefits but also posing critical ethical questions. These genetic factors, some of which are associated with blood type, may account for variations in observed responses to COVID-19. Hence, assessments of these genetic differences and blood type could provide possible benefits in gauging patients' risks of disease acquisition and prioritising allocation of interventions or vaccines, if supplies are limited. The media has widely reported these findings, and people online are now discussing their blood type and its possible effects on their COVID-19 risks, but several ethical concerns arise. Individuals possessing genetic variants or blood types associated with lower risk may engage in 'risk compensation', erroneously assuming that they can protect themselves less, and hence less frequently wearing masks or washing hands. Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many physicians, hospitals, patients, policymakers, members of the public, testing companies and others may well consider these factors in making critical prevention/treatment decisions. Researchers, providers and others should thus begin to address these concerns. Increased awareness and education aimed at providers, patients, family members, public health officials, political leaders and the public-at-large are critical. Attitudinal research is vital to examine how providers, patients and the public understand these findings. Ethical frameworks and guidelines are needed, addressing whether such genetic information should be incorporated into decisions regarding allocation of scarce resources-including hospital and ICU beds, ventilators, medications (eg, remdesivir) and vaccines-and if so, how.

Needs to address clinicians' moral distress in treating unvaccinated COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Moral dilemmas have arisen concerning whether physicians and other providers should treat patients who have declined COVID vaccination and are now sick with this disease. Several ethicists have argued that clinicians have obligations to treat such patients, yet providing care to these patients has distressed clinicians, who have at times declined to do so. Critical questions thus emerge regarding how best to proceed. MAIN BODY: Providers face moral tensions: whether to place the benefits to an unvaccinated patient over their duties to protect themselves and their families, staff and other patients, and goals of working collaboratively with patients. Clinicians' duties to treat such patients arguably outweigh claims otherwise, but these obligations are creating moral conflict and distress for providers. Moral distress has been associated with burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder, and interpersonal and work difficulties. Given ongoing vaccine refusals, these problems are unlikely to disappear in the foreseeable future. Society has obligations to address this moral distress due to principles of reciprocity, and implicit social contracts, as part of which physicians risk their lives in caring for patients for the good of society as a whole. Responses are thus urgently needed at several levels: by hospitals, medical schools, professional societies, governments, media, providers and patients. Medical training on professionalism should address these stresses, probing why doctors have duties to treat these patients, but also how moral conflicts can ensue, and how best to address these tensions. Governments and institutions should thus alter relevant policies and devote more resources to addressing clinicians' psychological strains. Institutions should also improve organizational culture. Public health organizations and the media described clinicians, earlier in the pandemic, as heroes, committed to treating COVID patients. This narrative should now be changed to highlight the strains that unvaccinated patients cause-endangering hospital staff and others. CONCLUSIONS: Unvaccinated COVID patients should receive care, but multi-level strategies, involving enhanced policies, education and practice are vital to alleviate ensuing moral distress, and thus aid these clinicians and their patients. Ethical arguments that providers must treat these patients have not considered these obligations' effects on clinicians, but should do so.

Henrietta Lacks' family's lawsuits: ethical questions and solutions.

The family of Henrietta Lacks has begun suing companies for using her cells, raising ethical and legal questions affecting research. Benefits and burdens should be shared among patients and researchers, but do not necessarily warrant cash transfers through lawsuits. This discussion has crucial implications for profits from donations of biospecimens.

How hospital chaplains develop and use rituals to address medical staff distress.

Physicians and nurses face high levels of moral distress and burnout, exacerbated by the COVID-19, yet are often busy, without time for extended interventions. Hospital chaplains have recently been asked to assist staff, but many questions arise concerning whether they do so, and if so, how and when, and whether they may vary in doing so. Thirty-one telephone interviews of ∼1 â€‹h each were conducted with 21 board-certified chaplains to examine these and related issues. Respondents reported how they help staff, often creating, on their own, innovative kinds of practices that appear to take the form of rituals. These rituals vary in audience (physicians, nurses and/or other staff, with or without patients or families), form (from open-ended to structured), formality (from formal to informal), timing (at hospital discharge, time of death or after death), duration (from a few minutes to longer), frequency (from once to several times or ongoing), content (expressing and/or reframing feelings and experiences), and activities (e.g., talking, eating and/or making commemorative objects). Such rituals can help staff cope with death, grief, and other stresses. Challenges arise, including hospital leaders' wariness, resistance or lack of support, and staff time constraints, making briefer sessions more practical. These data highlight how chaplains can assist staff through use of rituals, and learn from innovations/initiatives devised by colleagues elsewhere. Chaplains can thus enhance what they do as individuals and as a profession. These data have critical implications for future research, education and practice for physicians, nurses, hospital administrators, chaplains and others.

HIV prevention research and COVID-19: putting ethics guidance to the test.

BACKGROUND: Critical public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have disrupted health research worldwide, including HIV prevention research. While general guidance has been issued for the responsible conduct of research in these challenging circumstances, the contours of the dueling COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS pandemics raise some critical ethical issues for HIV prevention research. In this paper, we use the recently updated HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) Ethics Guidance Document (EGD) to situate and analyze key ethical challenges related to the conduct of HIV prevention research during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as identify potential areas for refinement of the guidance document based on this unprecedented state of affairs. MAIN BODY: Necessary actions taken for HIV prevention research studies due to the COVID-19 pandemic involve an array of ethical issues including those related to: (1) risk mitigation; (2) behavior change; (3) compounding vulnerability; (4) community engagement; (5) trial reopening; and 6) shifting research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the dueling HIV and COVID-19 global pandemics, research teams and sponsors must be nimble in responding to the rapidly changing environment by being sensitive to the associated ethical issues. The HTPN EGD provides a rich set of tools to help identify, analyze and address many of these issues. At the same time, future refinements of the HPTN EGD and other research ethics guidance could be strengthened by providing explicit advice regarding the ethical issues associated with disrupted research and the reopening of studies. In addition, additional consideration should be given to appropriately balancing domains of risk (e.g., physical versus social), addressing the vulnerability of research staff and community partners, and responding to un-anticipatable ancillary care needs of participants and communities. Appropriately addressing these issues will necessitate conceptual work, which would benefit from the careful documentation of the actual ethical issues encountered in research, the strategies implemented to overcome them, and their success in doing so. Throughout all of these efforts, it is critical to remember that the HIV pandemic not be forgotten in the rush to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ethical Challenges Arising in the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (ABPD) Task Force.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a host of ethical challenges, but key among these has been the possibility that health care systems might need to ration scarce critical care resources. Rationing policies for pandemics differ by institution, health system, and applicable law. Most seem to agree that a patient's ability to benefit from treatment and to survive are first-order considerations. However, there is debate about what clinical measures should be used to make that determination and about other factors that might be ethically appropriate to consider. In this paper, we discuss resource allocation and several related ethical challenges to the healthcare system and society, including how to define benefit, how to handle informed consent, the special needs of pediatric patients, how to engage communities in these difficult decisions, and how to mitigate concerns of discrimination and the effects of structural inequities.