Physicians' Acceptance of Triage Guidelines in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

Aims: One of the major ethical challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic comes in the form of fair triage decisions for critically ill patients in situations where life-saving resources are limited. In Spring 2020, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) issued specific guidelines on triage for intensive-care treatment in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. While evidence has shown that the capacities of intensive care medicine throughout Switzerland were sufficient to take care of all critically ill patients during the first wave of the outbreak, no evidence is available regarding the acceptance of these guidelines by ICU staff. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the acceptance and perceived implementation of the SAMS guidelines among a sample of senior physicians involved in the care of Covid-19 patients in the Canton of Ticino. Specific objectives included capturing and describing physicians' attitudes toward the guidelines, any challenges experienced in their application, and any perceived factors that facilitated or would facilitate their application. Methods: We conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with a purposive sample of nine senior physicians employed as either head of unity, deputy-head of unit, or medical director in either one of the two Covid-19 hospitals in the Canton of Ticino during the peak of the outbreak. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using an inductive approach. Results: We found that participants held different views regarding the nature of the guidelines, saw decisions on admission as a matter of collective responsibility, argued that decisions should be based on a medical futility principle rather than an age criterion, and found that difficulties to address end-of-life issues led to a comeback of paternalism. Conclusions: Results highlight the importance of clarifying the nature of the guidelines, establishing authority, and responsibility during triaging decisions, recognizing and addressing sources of interference with patients' autonomy, and the need of a cultural shift in timely and efficiently addressing end-of-life issues.

Affective empathy predicts self-isolation behaviour acceptance during coronavirus risk exposure.

Health risk exposure during the global COVID-19 pandemic has required people to adopt self-isolation. Public authorities have therefore had the difficult task of sustaining such protective but stressful behaviour. Evidence shows that besides egoistic drives, the motivation for self-isolation behaviour could be altruistic. However, the type and role of prosocial motivation in the current pandemic is underestimated and its interaction with risk exposure and psychological distress is largely unknown. Here we show that affective empathy for the most vulnerable predicts acceptance of lockdown measures. In two retrospective studies, one with a general population and one with COVID-19 positive patients, we found that (1) along with health risk exposure, affective empathy is a predictor of acceptance of lockdown measures (2) social covariates and psychological distress have no significant impact. Our results support the need to focus on altruistic behaviours while informing the public instead of on fear-inducing messages.

Influence of Empathy Disposition and Risk Perception on the Psychological Impact of Lockdown During the Coronavirus Disease Pandemic Outbreak.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, and especially in the absence of availability of an effective treatment or a vaccine, the main health measure is neither chemical nor biological, but behavioral. To reduce the exponential growth of infections due to the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting overburdening of the healthcare system, many European Countries, parts of the US and Switzerland gradually implemented measures of quarantine and isolation defined as lockdown. This consideration leads to the need to understand how individuals are motivated to protect themselves and others. Recent research suggested that prosocial mental dispositions, such as empathy, might promote adherence to social norms of distancing. Other research conducted during the COVID-19 outbreak indicates, however, that empathy levels might fluctuate according to anxiety linked to the risk of death, and this negatively predicted prosocial willingness. The present protocol proposes a study on whether people's empathic dispositions, interacting with the levels of risk, influence the psychological impact of lockdown. The rationale is that emphatic dispositions, encouraging the acceptance of the lockdown, determine a better psychological adaptation and less distress. One retrospective study will be developed in Switzerland and, if the pandemic conditions force a new wave of lockdown on the population, one prospective study as well. A total of 120 participants will be involved, distinguished by their level of objective risk: (1) high objective risk (COVID-19 positive patients, hospitalized in isolation in post-acute phase); (2) moderate objective risk (COVID-19 positive patients, isolated at home); (3) minimum objective risk (non-positive adults, in lockdown). Measures of perceived risk of being contagious for third parties, empathic dispositions and acceptance of lockdown will be collected. The expected results provide important answers related to the immediate impact of empathic dispositions, effective risk and risk perception on the psychological impact of lockdown during a pandemic outbreak. Data gathered from this study could inform policy makers and public health managers about the best communication strategies that will take into account the various stages of health risk and, in particular, to modulate messages to the population aimed at inducing self-isolation behaviors.