COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in the United States: a social justice policy.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination is the most effective strategy to mitigating COVID-19 and restoring societal function. As the pandemic evolves with no certainty of a herd immunity threshold, universal vaccination of at-risk populations is desirable. However, vaccine hesitancy threatens the return to normalcy, and healthcare workers (HCWs) must embrace their ambassadorial role of shoring up vaccine confidence. Unfortunately, voluntary vaccination has been suboptimal among HCWs in the United States, a priority group for whom immunization is essential for maintaining health system capacity and the safety of high-risk patients in their care. Consequently, some health systems have implemented mandates to improve compliance. AREAS COVERED: This article discusses the ethical and practical considerations of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies for HCWs utilizing some components of the World Health Organization's framework and the unique context of a pandemic with evolving infection dynamics. EXPERT OPINION: COVID-19 vaccine mandates for universal immunization of HCWs raise ethical and practical debates about their appropriateness, especially when the vaccines are pending full approval in most jurisdictions. Given the superiority of the vaccines to safety and testing protocols and their favorable safety profile, we encourage health systems to adopt vaccination mandates through participatory processes that address the concerns of stakeholders.

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. Objective: To create an evidence- and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. Evidence Review: A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. Findings: The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. Conclusions and Relevance: Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

[COVID-19: Compulsory vaccination for workers in the medical field?] / COVID-19: Impflicht für Arbeitnehmer im medizinischen Bereich?

Now that the majority of medical personnel have been vaccinated against COVID-19 or are at least willing to be vaccinated, it is necessary to discuss whether employees can be required to be vaccinated. Can employers demand proof of vaccination, and are there consequences under labor law for refusing to vaccinate? Currently, there is no general legal COVID-19 vaccination requirement. Any mandatory vaccination is an encroachment on the fundamental right to physical integrity and to informational self-determination. This encroachment on fundamental rights must be weighed up in each individual case.

Is it discriminatory to require hospital staff to be clean shaven to facilitate the effective wearing of personal protective equipment?

National Health Service employers are subject to legal duties to protect the health and safety of their employees and third parties who come into contact with their staff. In order to discharge these duties, National Health Service employers must implement a range of protective measures to mitigate risk. One such measure is to require staff to wear personal protective equipment, including respiratory protective equipment, in certain circumstances. This is of particular importance during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the presence of facial hair has a negative impact on the effectiveness of respiratory protective equipment. This article discusses whether a requirement to be clean shaven could amount to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Liability of Health Care Professionals and Institutions During COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: Symposium Proceedings and Position Statement.

BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2020, a symposium titled "Liability of healthcare professionals and institutions during COVID-19 pandemic" was held in Italy with the participation of national experts in malpractice law, hospital management, legal medicine, and clinical risk management. The symposium's rationale was the highly likely inflation of criminal and civil proceedings concerning alleged errors committed by health care professionals and decision makers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its aim was to identify and discuss the main issues of legal and medicolegal interest and thus to find solid solutions in the spirit of preparedness planning. METHODS: There were 5 main points of discussion: (A) how to judge errors committed during the pandemic because of the application of protocols and therapies based on no or weak evidence of efficacy, (B) whether hospital managers can be considered liable for infected health care professionals who were not given adequate personal protective equipment, (C) whether health care professionals and institutions can be considered liable for cases of infected inpatients who claim that the infection was transmitted in a hospital setting, (D) whether health care institutions and hospital managers can be considered liable for the hotspots in long-term care facilities/care homes, and (E) whether health care institutions and hospital managers can be considered liable for the worsening of chronic diseases. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Limitation of the liability to the cases of gross negligence (with an explicit definition of this term), a no-fault system with statal indemnities for infected cases, and a rigorous methodology for the expert witnesses were proposed as key interventions for successfully facing future proceedings.

Covid-19 and medical negligence litigation: Immunity for healthcare professionals?

This article considers the recent calls to provide doctors with immunity from medical negligence claims arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic. It provides a critical analysis as to the conditions that would need to be considered for such a policy as well as exploring the wider ramifications.

Covid-19 and medical liability: A delicate balance.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, many countries around the world are considering whether and how to provide liability protection to front-line healthcare staff. The guiding principle of liability protection for physicians and others is to ensure that, in a serious emergency situation, health professionals can devote themselves exclusively to their work and to patient care, without the fear of future claims for unforeseeable, but above all unavoidable, injury, loss and damage caused by their conduct. Great care is needed to balance the interests and rights of all those involved. Liability protection could have risky consequences with the final result that doctors will not be protected, but institutions such as health facilities will be even if they were in fact responsible for foreseeable and avoidable damage.

The medico-legal implications in medical malpractice claims during Covid-19 pandemic: Increase or trend reversal?

The Covid-19 pandemic caused a marked increase in admissions to intensive care units. The critically ill patients' condition from the infection resulted in their deaths. The healthcare facilities have got into trouble because of the pandemic. In fact, they had to create additional beds in a very short time and to protect health workers with personal protective equipment. Healthcare professionals fear that there will be an increase in complaints and medico-legal malpractice claims and hence they have urged politicians to discuss this. The Italian Parliament recently debated the topic of medical liability and passed the Decree-Law no. 18 of 17 March 2020 (DL - so called Cura Italia) by which they want to extend the concept of "gross negligence" to healthcare facilities. Several Extended Care Units have suffered from outbreaks of Covid-19, so the Prosecutor's Office of several cities initiated investigations against them. This situation has reached Sicily, where the Prosecutor's Office of Palermo has opened an inquiry against an Extended Care Unit. Simultaneously, the Covid-19 pandemic may change patients' attitudes towards healthcare professionals, who are risking their lives daily. So the Italian medico-legal community is debating these questions, with one last pending question remaining: is the number of medico-legal claims likely to increase or trend down?

To take care of those on the front line against Covid-19: Is it possible to limit medical liability?

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important not to forget, when the emergency is controlled or even over, that those who today are defined in all Countries as "heroes" could in the future be called to answer for alleged damage from professional liability. It is necessary to be prepared, both as health professionals and from a legal and governmental point of view, for a surge of professional liability claims which, with high probability, will begin to emerge in the coming months.