Visitor restrictions in hospitals during infectious disease outbreaks: An ethical approach to policy development and requests for exemptions.

In this paper, we explore the ethics of restricting visitation to hospitals during an infectious disease outbreak. We aim to answer three questions: What are the features of an ethically justified hospital visitor restriction policy? Should policies include scope for case-by-case exemptions? How should decisions about exemptions be made? Based on a critical interpretive review of the existing ethical literature on visitor restrictions, we argue that an ethically justified hospital visitor restriction policy has the following features: proportionality, comprehensiveness, harm mitigation, exemptions for specific patient populations, visitation decisions made separately from a patient's treating clinicians, transparency, and consistency in application. We also argue that an ethical policy ought to include scope for case-by-case exemptions for individual patients. We propose a process for ethical decision-making that provides a shared language and structure to decrease the risks and burdens of decision-making when clinicians or managers are considering requests for exemptions.

Practical ethical challenges and moral distress among staff in a hospital COVID-19 screening service.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented disruptions to established models of healthcare and healthcare delivery, creating a host of new ethical challenges for healthcare institutions, their leadership and their staff. Hospitals and other large organisations have an obligation to understand and recognise the downstream effects that highly unusual situations and professionally demanding policy may have on workers tasked with its implementation, in order to institute risk-mitigation strategies and provide additional support where required. In our experience, targeted ethics-based forums that provide a non-confrontational platform to discuss and explore the ethical dilemmas that may have arisen have been well received, and can also serve as useful and immediate feedback mechanisms to managers and leadership. Using two case illustrations, this article examines some of the ethical challenges and dilemmas faced by these staff, based on discussions of shared experience during a clinical ethics forum for the Screening Clinic staff at Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria.

Supporting cancer care clinicians to 'hold' their patients during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic: a role for reflective ethics discussions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an overwhelming burden on healthcare delivery globally. This paper examines how COVID-19 has affected cancer care clinicians' capacity to deliver cancer care in the Australian context. We use the lens of 'holding patients' (drawing from attachment theory, psychology and from Australian Indigenous knowledge) to conceptualise cancer clinicians' processes of care and therapeutic relationships with patients. These notions of 'holding' resonate with the deep responsibility cancer care clinicians feel towards their patients. They enrich ethical language beyond duties to benefit, avoid harm, respect patients' autonomy and provide just treatment. We consider the disruptive effects of COVID-19 on care delivery and on clinicians themselves. We then show how models of clinical ethics and other similar reflective discussion approaches are a relevant support mechanism to assist clinicians to process and make sense of COVID-19's disruptions to their professional ethical role of holding patients during and beyond the pandemic.

Balancing health worker well-being and duty to care: an ethical approach to staff safety in COVID-19 and beyond

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the risks that can be involved in healthcare work. In this paper, we explore the issue of staff safety in clinical work using the example of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the COVID-19 crisis. We articulate some of the specific ethical challenges around PPE currently being faced by front-line clinicians, and develop an approach to staff safety that involves balancing duty to care and personal well-being. We describe each of these values, and present a decision-making framework that integrates the two. The aim of the framework is to guide the process of balancing these two values when staff safety is at stake, by facilitating ethical reflection and/or decision-making that is systematic, specific and transparent. It provides a structure for individual reflection, collaborative staff discussion, and decision-making by those responsible for teams, departments and other groups of healthcare staff. Overall the framework guides the decision maker to characterise the degree of risk to staff, articulate feasible options for staff protection in that specific setting and identify the option that ensures any decrease in patient care is proportionate to the increase in staff well-being. It applies specifically to issues of PPE in COVID-19, and also has potential to assist decision makers in other situations involving protection of healthcare staff.