Should neurosurgeons continue to work in the absence of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 era?

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a widespread shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many healthcare workers, including neurosurgeons, have expressed concern about how to safely and adequately perform their medical responsibilities in these challenging circumstances. One of these concerns revolves around the pressing question: should providers continue to work in the absence of adequate PPE? Although the first peak of the COVID-19 crisis seems to have subsided and supply of PPE has increased, concerns about insufficient PPE availability remain. Inconsistent supply, limited efficacy, and continued high demand for PPE, combined with the continued threat of a second COVID-19 wave, mean that the issues surrounding PPE availability remain unresolved, including a duty to work. This paper offers an ethical investigation of whether neurosurgeons should perform their professional responsibilities with limited availability of PPE. We evaluate ethical considerations and conflicting duties and thereby hope to facilitate providers in making a well-considered personal and moral decision about this challenging issue.

Mixed Method Study to Explore Ethical Dilemmas and Health Care Workers' Willingness to Work Amid COVID-19 Pandemic in Palestine.

Background: The high potential risks involved in working in a healthcare setting during a pandemic and the associated fear that may affect health care workers' (HCWs') willingness to work are important to understand to eliminate potential barriers to working. This study aimed to assess Palestinian HCWs' willingness to work and the related factors as well as to explore their ethical dilemmas during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and Methods: Quantitative (survey questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) data were collected. Frontline HCWs (n = 550) received an online survey link via closed institutional networks. Frequencies summarized the data, and chi-square compared variables and outcomes. Odds ratios (ORs) and multivariable analysis examined predictors for willingness to work. Fifteen HCWs (physicians, nurses, and lab and radiology technicians) were purposefully sampled and agreed to interviews to explore their thoughts, motivations, and worries. Thematic analysis focused on ethical dilemmas to enhance the breadth and the depth of the study. Results: Almost 25% of surveyed HCWs were not willing to work during the pandemic. Logistic model results showed that physicians and nurses had higher willingness to work than others (p = 0.004, Adj. OR = 3.5). Lower stress levels and longer professional experience were predictors of more willing to work (p = 0.03, Adj. OR = 2.5; p = 0.03, Adj. OR = 2.6, respectively). Interviews showed that willingness to work did not preclude HCWs from fulfilling their duties despite grueling workloads and grave fears about safety and security. HCWs felt poorly prepared, unappreciated, and frustrated by unfair work distribution. The occupation presented additional safety issues. Conclusion: Physicians and nurses were more likely to comply with a commitment to their professional ethics and the duty or obligation to work. Stress levels could be mitigated in the future with better leadership, adding supports to address mental health and psychosocial challenges to enhance HCWs' well-being and improve quality of care. The realities of the occupation added additional threats and uncertainty.

A national survey of emergency nurses and avian influenza threat.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the perceived likelihood of emergency nurses reporting to work during an avian influenza outbreak, to consider options if nurses decided not to report work, and to explore Protection Motivation Theory constructs as predictors of reporting to work. METHODS: A descriptive, nonexperimental, cross-sectional survey of emergency nurses within the United States. RESULTS: A total of 332 nurses (46%) responded. Most emergency nurses (84%) reported they would report to work (1 in 6 would not). The likelihood of reporting to work differed by education level, nurses' avian influenza information sources, and nurses who had family living with them. Of the nurses who decided not to report to work, the majority were willing to provide health information (90%), administer vaccinations (82%), and triage (74%) neighbors/friends from home. One third of nurses had not attended a disaster-preparedness drill within the past year. Only 20% identified formal training while on the job as a source of avian influenza information. A third of emergency nurses would be worried about getting an avian influenza vaccination because of potential adverse effects. Protection Motivation Theory accounted for almost 40% of the variance of likelihood to report to work, with response costs being the largest predictor. DISCUSSION: Disaster drills, avian influenza job training, and vaccination education are necessary to prepare emergency nurses for an outbreak. The findings support emergency nurses' willingness to work from home if they are unable to report to work. This finding is new and may have implications for disaster planning, staffing, and ED operations.