Severity as a Priority Setting Criterion: Setting a Challenging Research Agenda

Priority setting in health care is ubiquitous and health authorities are increasingly recognising the need for priority setting guidelines to ensure efficient, fair, and equitable resource allocation. While cost-effectiveness concerns seem to dominate many policies, the tension between utilitarian and deontological concerns is salient to many, and various severity criteria appear to fill this gap. Severity, then, must be subjected to rigorous ethical and philosophical analysis. Here we first give a brief history of the path to today’s severity criteria in Norway and Sweden. The Scandinavian perspective on severity might be conducive to the international discussion, given its long-standing use as a priority setting criterion, despite having reached rather different conclusions so far. We then argue that severity can be viewed as a multidimensional concept, drawing on accounts of need, urgency, fairness, duty to save lives, and human dignity. Such concerns will often be relative to local mores, and the weighting placed on the various dimensions cannot be expected to be fixed. Thirdly, we present what we think are the most pertinent questions to answer about severity in order to facilitate decision making in the coming years of increased scarcity, and to further the understanding of underlying assumptions and values that go into these decisions. We conclude that severity is poorly understood, and that the topic needs substantial further inquiry; thus we hope this article may set a challenging and important research agenda

Moral Stress among Swedish Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Aims: This study quantifies to what extent Health care workers (HCWs) experienced moral stress and to what extent their experiences of moral stress were related to gender and age as well as to working directly with COVID-19 patients and other work-related factors. Methods: This study consists of a cross-sectional survey that was conducted among 16,044 Swedish HCWs. A total of 153,300 HCWs and support staff who participated in the COVID-19 training offered by the Karolinska Institute were invited by email to participate in a web survey during autumn 2020. Results: This study is the first to quantify the frequency and severity of moral stress in a large group of HCWs. Moral stress was reported to a higher extent by HCWs involved in COVID-19 care and those involved in direct patient care. A lack of resources and the restrictions that hindered the patients’ family and friends from being involved were major causes of moral stress. Informal support was reported as being the most available and useful for dealing with moral stress. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that moral stress is common among HCWs who work with infected patients during a pandemic. The goal should not be to eliminate moral stress, as such stress may be viewed as a normal reaction to moral issues, but organizational structures (sufficient staffing and resources), could decrease the likelihood of morally stressful situations. Finally, to avoid the development of moral distress and its potential consequences, improvements could be made in providing HCWs with support tools for managing moral stress

Ethical deliberations about involuntary treatment: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists

Background: Involuntary treatment is a key issue in healthcare ethics. In this study, ethical issues relating to involuntary psychiatric treatment are investigated through interviews with Swedish psychiatrists. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with eight Swedish psychiatrists, focusing on their experiences of and views on compulsory treatment. In relation to this, issues about patient autonomy were also discussed. The interviews were analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach. Results: The answers focus on two main aspects of compulsory treatment. Firstly, deliberations about when and why it was justifiable to make a decision on involuntary treatment in a specific case. Here the cons and pros of ordering compulsory treatment were discussed, with particular emphasis on the consequences of providing treatment vs. refraining from ordering treatment. Secondly, a number of issues relating to background factors affecting decisions for or against involuntary treatment were also discussed. These included issues about the Swedish Mental Care Act, healthcare organisation and the care environment. Conclusions: Involuntary treatment was generally seen as an unwanted exception to standard care. The respondents’ judgments about involuntary treatment were typically in line with Swedish law on the subject. However, it was also argued that the law leaves room for individual judgments when making decisions about involuntary treatment. Much of the reasoning focused on the consequences of ordering involuntary treatment, where risk of harm to the therapeutic alliance was weighed against the assumed good consequences of ensuring that patients received needed treatment. Cases concerning suicidal patients and psychotic patients who did not realise their need for care were typically held as paradigmatic examples of justified involuntary care. However, there was an ambivalence regarding the issue of suicide as it was also argued that risk of suicide in itself might not be sufficient for justified involuntary care. It was moreover argued that organisational factors sometimes led to decisions about compulsory treatment that could have been avoided, given a more patient-oriented healthcare organisation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0029-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Challenges regarding informed consent in recruitment to clinical research : a qualitative study of clinical research nurses’ experiences

publishedVersio