Care in emergencies and disasters: Can it be person-centered?

OBJECTIVES: While person-/patient-centered care aims to influence policymakers' rules and regulations to improve the care of individuals worldwide, exploration of the concept in the context of disaster and public health emergencies as an alternative ethical approach is lacking. This study aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the advantages and challenges of diverse ethical approaches in emergencies, to improve patient care. METHODS: A survey, created after several rounds of Delphi methodology, with 22 statements, was applied to 39 participants from nine different countries. The questionnaire's results, including participants' comments, were analyzed. RESULTS: The results show that practitioners chose to use a combination of diverse ethical approaches in managing victims of disasters and public health emergencies. CONCLUSION: The selection of an approach is context- and situation-dependent and seems to primarily respond to the nature of underlying etiology, creating a possibility to use diverse approaches to offer individualized care on a later occasion and when a flexible surge capacity is available. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The outcomes of this study will enhance the future ethical discussion in person/patient-centered care during situations with limited resources and help to develop necessary ethical and educational guidelines.

Fear, history, stigma, and bias in the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The greatest enemy of a global pandemic is not the virus itself, but the fear, rumor, and stigma that envelopes people. This article explores the context and history of fear and stigma relating to pandemic, summarizing key actions to mitigate the harms during an active pandemic. METHOD: Our article draws from accounts in literature and journalist accounts documenting the relationship between infectious diseases and major disease outbreaks that have garnered fear and stigmatization. RESULTS: Fear, stigma, and discrimination are not new concepts for pandemics. These social effects run the risk of diverting attention from the presenting disease and government responses. Reactions to fear, stigma, and discrimination risk sabotaging effective efforts to contain, manage, and eradicate the disease. CONCLUSION: Emergency managers have an important role in dispelling myths, disseminating appropriate and evidence-based information without exacerbating fears. Knowledge about the roots of fear and bias along with a good understanding of historical plagues and pandemics is vital to ensure those in the field of emergency management can effectively manage irrational fears.