Balancing burdens of infection control: Norwegian district medical officers' ethical challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In several countries, district medical officers (DMOs) are public health experts with duties including infection control measures. The Norwegian DMOs have been key actors in the local handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The aim of the study was to explore the ethical challenges experienced by Norwegian DMOs during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how the DMOs have handled these challenges. 15 in-depth individual research interviews were performed and analyzed with a manifest approach. RESULTS: Norwegian DMOs have had to handle a large range of significant ethical problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Often, a common denominator has been the need to balance burdens of the contagion control measures for different individuals and groups. In another large set of issues, the challenge was to achieve a balance between safety understood as effective contagion prevention on the one hand, and freedom, autonomy and quality of life for the same individuals on the other. CONCLUSIONS: The DMOs have a central role in the municipality's handling of the pandemic, and they wield significant influence. Thus, there is a need for support in decision-making, both from national authorities and regulations, and from discussions with colleagues.

Trust in healthcare before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Public trust is often advantageous for health authorities during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Norwegian health authorities used the public´s high trust to control the pandemic, resulting in relatively few casualties. METHODS: We wanted to describe and compare the Norwegian public trust in GPs, public healthcare, information and treatment in hospitals before and during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, we wanted to investigate the relationship between somatic or mental illness, and trust in GPs and public health information, and to develop a theoretical understanding of the relationship between trust in healthcare institutions, generalised trust and the societal situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed two surveys, the first in December 2019; the second in May 2020, thus providing two snapshots of the Norwegian public's trust in healthcare and healthcare actors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: There was statistically significant increased trust in public healthcare, in treatment at hospital and in information at hospital after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a non-significant rise in trust in GPs. We found that trust in public health information was not related to mental health nor having a chronic, somatic disease. CONCLUSION: The findings confirm that the Norwegian public's trust in healthcare and healthcare actors is high. The trust levels are also relatively stable, and even show an increase during the early phases of the pandemic. We suggest that there is a dynamic relationship between trust in public health information, healthcare institutions, generalised trust and a societal crisis situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the GP-patient trust seems less affected by a crisis situation, than the public´s trust in healthcare institutions. This difference may be explained by the relative stability caused by mandates of trust obtained from the patient.

Evaluating a clinical ethics committee (CEC) implementation process in an oncological research hospital: protocol for a process evaluation study using normalisation process theory (EvaCEC).

INTRODUCTION: A Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) is a multi-professional service whose aim is to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organisations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice.Although CEC are quite common worldwide, their successful implementation in a hospital setting presents many challenges.EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC) will evaluate the implementation of a CEC in a comprehensive cancer centre in Northern Italy 16 months after its establishment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EvaCEC is a mixed-method study with a retrospective quantitative analysis and a prospective qualitative evaluation by a range of data collection tools to enable the triangulation of data sources and analysis. Quantitative data related to the amount of CEC activities will be collected using the CEC's internal databases. Data on the level of knowledge, use and perception of the CEC will be collected through a survey with closed-ended questions disseminated among all the HPs employed at the healthcare centre. Data will be analysed with descriptive statistics.The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) will be used for the qualitative evaluation to determine whether and how the CEC can be successfully integrated into clinical practice. We will perform one-to-one semistructured interviews and a second online survey with different groups of stakeholders who had different roles in the implementation process of the CEC. Based on NPT concepts, the interviews and the survey will assess the acceptability of the CEC within the local context and needs and expectations to further develop the service. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the local ethics committee. The project is co-chaired by a PhD candidate and by a healthcare researcher with a doctorate in bioethics and expertise in research. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05466292.

Duty to treat and perceived risk of contagion during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian physicians' perspectives and experiences-a questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic actualised the dilemma of how to balance physicians´ obligation to treat patients and their own perceived risk of being infected. To discuss this in a constructive way we need empirical studies of physicians´ views of this obligation. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to a representative sample of Norwegian physicians in December 2020. We measured their perceived obligation to expose themselves to infection, when necessary, in order to provide care, concerns about being infected themselves, for spreading the virus to patients or to their families. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The response rate was 1639/2316 (70.9%), 54% women. Of doctors < 70, 60,2% (95% CI 57.7-62.7) acknowledged to some or a large degree an obligation to expose themselves to risk of infection, and 42.0% (39.5-44.5) held this view despite a scarcity of personal protective equipment (PPE). Concern about being infected oneself to some or to a large extent was reported by 42.8% (40.3-45.3), 47.8% (45.3-50.3) reported concern about spreading the virus to patients, and 63.9% (61.5-66.3) indicated worry about spreading it to their families. Being older increased the odds of feeling obligated (ExpB = 1.02 p < 0.001), while experiencing scarcity of PPE decreased the odds (ExpB = 0.74, p = 0.01). The odds of concern about spreading virus to one´s family decreased with higher age (Exp B = 0.97, p < 0.001), increased with being female (Exp B = 1.44, p = 0.004), and perceived lack of PPE (Exp B = 2.25, p < 0.001). Although more physicians working in COVID-exposed specialties experienced scarcity of PPE and reported perceived increased risks for health personnel, the odds of concern about being infected themselves or spreading the virus to their families were not higher than for other doctors. CONCLUSION: These empirical findings lead to the question if fewer physicians in the future will consider the duty to treat their top priority. This underscores the need to revisit and revitalise existing ethical codes to handle the dilemma between physicians´ duty to treat versus the duty to protect physicians and their families. This is important for the ability to provide good care for the patient and the provider in a future pandemic situation.

Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences.

BACKGROUND: In the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable. METHODS: In December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors' familiarity with them must improve.