ABSTRACT
In the 1980s Contact Precautions were introduced as a precautionary measure to control the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, particularly methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Today, antimicrobial resistance remains a concerning global public health threat, and a focus for hospital patient safety priorities. In late 2019 a novel respiratory virus described as SARS-CoV-2, was reported. Just as MRSA had prompted control measures developed in the context of limited information and understanding of the pathogen, public health control measures against SARS-CoV-2 were promptly and strictly implemented. Whilst SARS-CoV-2 control measures were successful at containing the virus, numerous detrimental socio-economic and health impacts have led to a rebalancing of harms versus benefits and loosening of restrictions. Conversely, evidence collated over the past 50 years, suggests that Contact Precautions are not superior to well-applied standard infection prevention and control precautions in controlling MRSA acquisition in hospitals. Several harms associated with Contact Precautions, affecting patient safety, financial costs, and organisational culture, are described. However, rebalancing of hospital MRSA control policies has been slow to materialise. This commentary invites infection prevention and control policy makers to reflect and revise policies for the control of MRSA in hospitals so that harms do not outweigh benefits.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During a disaster, nurses face complex ethical challenges because of risky situations. It is necessary to identify trends and ethical issues of nurses in disasters to improve the quality of care and impact for nurses. METHOD: This systematic review enrolled in the international registration with PROSPERO: CRD42022350765. We searched the following databases: PubMed, EBSCO MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Sage Pub. The inclusion criteria were developed according to PICO and D; are Population (F): involving nurses; intervention/Exposure (I): disaster, Comparison (C): none; outcome (O): ethical practice. And Design (D): qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Years of publication were 2012-2022, with full text in English. The quality of study assessment used was The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018. Analysis used PICO synthesis. RESULTS: There were 15 studies reviewed from 2093 results, including cross-sectional (4/15, 26.6%), qualitative (9/15, 60%), and mixed methods (2/15, 13.3%) studies. The types of disasters were: COVID-19 (7/15, 46.6%), infectious (4/15, 26.6%), and all disaster events (4/15, 26.6%). The main themes were: (1) ethical issues in disasters have the potential to address ethical dilemmas, (2) factors applying nursing ethics to support ethical decision-making in disasters, (3) strategies for applying ethics and dealing with ethical issues in disasters, and (4) the impact of applying ethics in disasters. CONCLUSION: Applying ethics nursing in a disaster is influenced by various factors. This framework for ethical nursing in disasters aims to help nurses, educational institutions, and policymakers develop schemes or scenarios to enhance responsible ethical decisions in disasters.
ABSTRACT
Moral injury may be experienced when a person perpetrates, witnesses or fails to prevent an act that conflicts with their moral values and beliefs. The concept of moral injury has its origins in the context of military personnel encountering ethically challenging decisions during armed conflict. The term has been applied to healthcare and moral injury is increasingly acknowledged to be a challenge for healthcare professionals. Nurses across all specialties and settings are frequently required to make or witness ethically challenging decisions about patient care. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased nurses' risk of sustaining moral injury. This article discusses the manifestations of moral injury and its associated risk factors, including the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also outlines various strategies that can be used to mitigate and/or prevent moral injury in nurses.
Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Decision Making/ethics , Nurses/psychology , Patient Care/ethics , Resilience, Psychological , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Burnout, Professional/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Occupational Health , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Shame , WorkforceABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has generated a range of responses from countries across the globe in managing and containing infections. Considerable research has highlighted the importance of trust in ethically and effectively managing infectious diseases in the population; however, considerations of reciprocal trust remain limited in debates on pandemic response. This paper aims to broaden the perspective of good ethical practices in managing an infectious disease outbreak by including the role of reciprocal trust. A synthesis of the approaches drawn from South Korea and Taiwan reveals reciprocal trust as an important ethical response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Reciprocal trust offers the opportunity to reconcile the difficulties arising from restrictive measures for protecting population health and individual rights.