SARS-CoV-2 screening among people living in homeless shelters in Brussels, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Subgroups of precarious populations such as homeless people are more exposed to infection and at higher risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 compared to the general population. Many of the recommended prevention measures, such as social distancing and self-isolation, are not feasible for a population living in shelters characterised by physical proximity and a high population density. The objective of the study was to describe SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in homeless shelters in Brussels (Belgium), and to identify risk factors and infection control practices associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. METHODS: A total of 1994 adults were tested by quantitative PCR tests in 52 shelters in Brussels (Belgium) between April and June, 2020, in collaboration with Doctors of the World. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence is here described site by site, and we identify risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. We also investigate associations between seropositivity and reported symptoms. RESULTS: We found an overall prevalence of 4.6% for the period, and a cluster of high rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (20-30% in two shelters). Among homeless people, being under 40 years of age (OR (CI95%) 2.3 (1.2-4.4), p = 0.02), having access to urgent medical care (AMU) (OR(CI95%): 2.4 (1.4-4.4)], p = 0.02), and sharing a room with someone who tested positive (OR(CI95%): 5.3 (2.9-9.9), p<0.0001) were factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. 93% of those who tested positive were asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: This study shows high rates of SARS-COV-2 infection positive tests in some shelters, with a high proportion of asymptomatic cases. The survey reveals how important testing and isolation measures are, together with actions taken by medical and social workers during the outbreak.

A plea to merge clinical and public health practices: reasons and consequences.

BACKGROUND: Revisiting professionalism, both as a medical ideal and educational topic, this paper asks whether, in the rise of artificial intelligence, healthcare commoditisation and environmental challenges, a rationale exists for merging clinical and public health practices. To optimize doctors' impact on community health, clinicians should introduce public health thinking and action into clinical practice, above and beyond controlling nosocomial infections and iatrogenesis. However, in the interest of effectiveness they should do everything possible to personalise care delivery. To solve this paradox, we explore why it is necessary for the boundaries between medicine and public health to be blurred. MAIN BODY: Proceeding sequentially, we derive standards for medical professionalism from care quality criteria, neo-Hippocratic ethics, public health concepts, and policy outcomes. Thereby, we formulate benchmarks for health care management and apply them to policy evaluation. During this process we justify the social, professional - and by implication, non-commercial, non-industrial - mission of healthcare financing and policies. The complexity of ethical, person-centred, biopsychosocial practice requires a human interface between suffering, health risks and their therapeutic solution - and thus legitimises the medical profession's existence. Consequently, the universal human right to healthcare is a right to access professionally delivered care. Its enforcement requires significant updating of the existing medical culture, and not just in respect of the man/machine interface. This will allow physicians to focus on what artificial intelligence cannot do, or not do well. These duties should become the touchstone of their practice, knowledge and ethics. Artificial intelligence must support medical professionalism, not determine it. Because physicians need sufficient autonomy to exercise professional judgement, medical ethics will conflict with attempts to introduce clinical standardisation as a managerial paradigm, which is what happens when industrial-style management is applied to healthcare. CONCLUSION: Public healthcare financing and policy ought to support medical professionalism, alongside integrated clinical and public health practice, and its management. Publicly-financed health management should actively promote ethics in publicly- oriented services. Commercialised healthcare is antithetical to ethical medical, and to clinical / public health practice integration. To lobby governments effectively, physicians need to appreciate the political economy of care.

In defence of a single body of clinical and public health, medical ethics.

BACKGROUND: Since some form of dual clinical/public health practice is desirable, this paper explains why their ethics should be combined to influence medical practice and explores a way to achieve that. MAIN TEXT: In our attempt to merge clinical and public health ethics, we empirically compared the individual and collective health consequences of two illustrative lists of medical and public health ethical tenets and discussed their reciprocal relevance to praxis. The studied codes share four principles, namely, 1. respect for individual/collective rights and the patient's autonomy; 2. cultural respect and treatment that upholds the patient's dignity; 3. honestly informed consent; and 4. confidentiality of information. However, they also shed light on the strengths and deficiencies of each other's tenets. Designing a combined clinical and public health code requires fleshing out three similar principles, namely, beneficence, medical and public health engagement in favour of health equality, and community and individual participation; and adopting three stand-alone principles, namely, professional excellence, non-maleficence, and scientific excellence. Finally, we suggest that eco-biopsychosocial and patient-centred care delivery and dual clinical/public health practice should become a doctor's moral obligation. We propose to call ethics based on non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice - the values upon which, according to Pellegrino and Thomasma, the others are grounded and that physicians and ethicists use to resolve ethical dilemmas - "neo-Hippocratic". The neo- prefix is justified by the adjunct of a distributive dimension (justice) to traditional Hippocratic ethics. CONCLUSION: Ethical codes ought to be constantly updated. The above values do not escape the rule. We have formulated them to feed discussions in health services and medical associations. Not only are these values fragmentary and in progress, but they have no universal ambition: they are applicable to the dilemmas of modern Western medicine only, not Ayurvedic or Shamanic medicine, because each professional culture has its own philosophical rationale. Efforts to combine clinical and public health ethics whilst resolving medical dilemmas can reasonably be expected to call upon the physician's professional identity because they are intellectual challenges to be associated with case management.