Global Nurse Involvement in ethical decision-making during pandemics: a concept analysis.

Background: During pandemics, there are considerable ethical dilemmas. It is imperative that nurses are involved in ethical decision-making bringing nursing theory, practice and perspectives to better advocate for patients. In order to prepare nurses to be partners in ethical dilemma decision-making during pandemics, it is vital to understand the extent that nurses are involved in such decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aim: The purpose of this concept analysis is to identify nurse involvement in ethical decision-making during pandemics. Method: Concept analysis methodology based on literature searches used bibliographic databases: PubMed - 20 papers; Google Scholar - 8120 papers; EMBASE - 25 papers; Science Direct - 246 papers and hand searches. Results: Nurse involvement in ethical decision-making during pandemics focused on nurses' physical and emotional stress, communication challenges, saturation and collapse of limited resources and allocation of scarce resources. Additional dilemmas included, changing nature of nurses' relationships with patients and families, questionable ethical equipoise preforming COVID-19 research, triage patient decisions receiving scarce resources, partner participation during labour and delivery and end-of-life decisions. Conclusion: In order to protect and sustain nurses' well-being and competency, nurses should establish a framework for nurses' involvement in ethical policy development in emergencies, pandemics, education and preparedness and decision-making to be able to deal with public health emergencies.

Variation in communication and family visiting policies in intensive care within and between countries during the Covid-19 pandemic: The COVISIT international survey.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICU) introduced restrictions to in-person family visiting to safeguard patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey (March-July 2021) investigating ICU visiting practices before the pandemic, at peak COVID-19 ICU admissions, and at the time of survey response. We sought data on visiting policies and communication modes including use of virtual visiting (videoconferencing). RESULTS: We obtained 667 valid responses representing ICUs in all continents. Before the pandemic, 20% (106/525) had unrestricted visiting hours; 6% (30/525) did not allow in-person visiting. At peak, 84% (558/667) did not allow in-person visiting for patients with COVID-19; 66% for patients without COVID-19. This proportion had decreased to 55% (369/667) at time of survey reporting. A government mandate to restrict hospital visiting was reported by 53% (354/646). Most ICUs (55%, 353/615) used regular telephone updates; 50% (306/667) used telephone for formal meetings and discussions regarding prognosis or end-of-life. Virtual visiting was available in 63% (418/667) at time of survey. CONCLUSIONS: Highly restrictive visiting policies were introduced at the initial pandemic peaks, were subsequently liberalized, but without returning to pre-pandemic practices. Telephone became the primary communication mode in most ICUs, supplemented with virtual visits.

Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.

Nurses' perceptions of social rejection, resilience and well-being during COVID-19: A national comparative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of social rejection and well-being of nurses, whether resilience is a mediator between them and to compare nurses who worked versus did not work on COVID-19 wards. BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic health care workers reported psychological distress and social rejection. METHODS: An online survey was sent to nursing social media groups in Israel. Respondents completed a Demographic, Social Rejection, Resilience and General Well-being questionnaire. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-seven nurses responded. The majority were female with a mean age of 43.6 years Approximately one-third were worried about infecting their family members and many agreed that their family fears that the nurse will infect them. Nurses reported their partner, family members, neighbours and the public physically distanced themselves from them. Approximately one quarter reported feeling lonely. Statistically significant differences were found between those who worked versus not work on a COVID-19 unit on general well-being, and social rejection. No differences were found in resilience scores. CONCLUSIONS: Social rejection was felt by many nurses as shown by an inverse relationship between the closeness of the relationship and the sense of social rejection and a high level of loneliness and depression. A higher level of social rejection and lower well-being were found among nurses working on COVID-19 wards as opposed to those who did not. General well-being was found to be exceptionally low during COVID-19. Resilience did not mediate the relationship between social rejection and general well-being. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Perceived social rejection might be associated with decreased well-being. The level of resilience is related to the level of well-being among nurses in general. Nurses not working in COVID-19 wards have higher levels of well-being and less social rejection compared with nurses working in these wards.