Stretching oneself too thin and facing ethical challenges: Healthcare professionals' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUNDS: Most countries are facing increased pressure on healthcare resources. A better understanding of how healthcare providers respond to new demands is relevant for future pandemics and other crises. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore what nurses and doctors in Norway reported as their main ethical challenges during two periods of the COVID-19 pandemic: February 2021 and February 2022. RESEARCH DESIGN: A longitudinal repeated cross-sectional study was conducted in the Western health region of Norway. The survey included an open-ended question about ethical challenges among doctors and nurses in hospital departments. Free-text comments were analysed using Systematic Text Condensation and also presented in a frequency table. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval was granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131,421). All participants provided consent when participating in the study. RESULTS: In 2021, 249 and in 2022, 163 healthcare professionals responded to the open-ended question. Nurses and doctors reported three main categories of ethical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) barriers that hindered them in acting as they ethically would have wanted to do; (2) priority-setting dilemmas linked to overtreatment, transfer of resources and ranking patient needs; and (3) workload expansion threatening work-life balance and employees' health. Category one comprised of resource barriers, regulatory barriers, system barriers, and personal barriers. Regulatory barriers, especially visitor restrictions for next-of-kin, were the most frequently reported in 2021. Resource barriers, related to the increased scarcity of qualified staff, were most frequently reported in 2022. Clinicians stretched themselves thin to avoid compromising on care, diagnostics, or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Developing clinicians' ability to handle and cope with limited healthcare resources is necessary. To foster resilience and sustainability, healthcare leaders, in collaboration with their staff, should ensure fair priority-setting and initiate reflections among doctors and nurses on what it implies to provide 'good enough' care.

Health workers' experience of providing second-trimester abortion care in Ethiopia: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Second-trimester abortions are less common than abortions in the first trimester, yet they disproportionately account for a higher burden of abortion-related mortality and morbidity worldwide. Health workers play a crucial role in granting or denying access to these services, yet little is known about their experiences. Ethiopia has been successful in reducing mortality due to unsafe abortion over the past decade, but access to second trimester abortion remains a challenge. The aim of this study is to better understand this issue by exploring the experiences of second-trimester abortion providers working in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. METHODS: A qualitative study with 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews with 16 health workers directly involved in providing second-trimester abortions, this included obstetrician and gynaecologist specialists and residents, general practitioners, nurses, and midwives. Data was collected at four public hospitals and one non-governmental clinic in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and analysed using Malterud's text-condensation method. RESULTS: The providers recognized the critical need for second-trimester abortion services and were motivated by their empathy towards women who often sought care late due to marginalisation and poverty making it difficult to access abortion before the second trimester. However, service provision was challenging according to the providers, and barriers like lack of access to essential drugs and equipment, few providers willing to conduct abortions late in pregnancy and unclear guidelines were commonly experienced. This led to highly demanding working conditions. The providers experienced ethical dilemmas pertaining to the possible viability of the fetus and women desperately requesting the service after the legal limit. CONCLUSIONS: Second-trimester abortion providers faced severe barriers and ethical dilemmas pushing their moral threshold and medical risk-taking in efforts to deliver second-trimester abortions to vulnerable women in need of the service. Effort is needed to minimize health system barriers and improve guidelines and support for second-trimester abortion providers in order to increase access and quality of second-trimester abortion services in Ethiopia. The barriers forcing women into second trimester abortions also need to be addressed.

Den gylne regel for prioritering av rusbehandling og psykisk helsevern ­ en kvalitativ studie.

BACKGROUND: For many years there has been broad political agreement on prioritising substance use treatment and mental health care in the specialist health service. Between 2014 and 2021, the 'golden rule' applied, meaning that there should be higher relative growth in mental health care and interdisciplinary specialised substance use treatment compared to somatic healthcare services. This study aimed to investigate the understanding among Norwegian health leaders and bureaucrats of the golden rule's role in the prioritisation of resources to the field of substance use and psychiatry in the specialist health service. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The study is based on a one-year ethnographic study of priority-setting in Norwegian health trusts and bureaucracy. Documents, observations of meetings and twelve qualitative in-depth interviews were analysed using a qualitative discourse method. RESULTS: The golden rule contributed to an increased investment in substance use treatment and mental health care in the health trusts, according to health leaders. However, the golden rule was only one of many competing and at times conflicting guidelines they had to take into account. Many factors impeded higher growth in substance use treatment and mental health care compared to somatic health care. Several participants argued that it was impossible to follow the golden rule. The inability to achieve the goal was explained by demographic trends, funding arrangements and lack of follow-up of the rule. INTERPRETATION: Healthcare priorities are set in institutions that have to consider numerous political interests and social mandates. The study's findings illustrate the complexity of practical implementation of political priorities.

Bedside rationing and moral distress in nephrologists in sub- Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Kidney diseases constitute an important proportion of the non-communicable disease (NCD) burden in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), though prevention, diagnosis and treatment of kidney diseases are less prioritized in public health budgets than other high-burden NCDs. Dialysis is not considered cost-effective, and for those patients accessing the limited service available, high out-of-pocket expenses are common and few continue care over time. This study assessed challenges faced by nephrologists in SSA who manage patients needing dialysis. The specific focus was to investigate if and how physicians respond to bedside rationing situations. METHODS: A survey was conducted among a randomly selected group of nephrologists from SSA. The questionnaire was based on a previously validated survey instrument. A descriptive and narrative approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Among 40 respondents, the majority saw patients weekly with acute kidney injury (AKI) or end-stage kidney failure (ESKF) in need of dialysis whom they could not dialyze. When dialysis was provided, clinical compromises were common, and 66% of nephrologists reported lack of basic diagnostics and medication and > 80% reported high out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Several patient-, disease- and institutional factors influenced who got access to dialysis. Patients' financial constraints and poor chances of survival limited the likelihood of receiving dialysis (reported by 79 and 78% of nephrologists respectively), while a patient's being the family bread-winner increased the likelihood (reported by 56%). Patient and institutional constraints resulted in most nephrologists (88%) frequently having to make difficult choices, sometimes having to choose between patients. Few reported existence of priority setting guidelines. Most nephrologists (74%) always, often or sometimes felt burdened by ethical dilemmas and worried about patients out of hospital hours. As a consequence, almost 46% of nephrologists reported frequently regretting their choice of profession and 26% had considered leaving the country. CONCLUSION: Nephrologists in SSA face harsh priority setting at the bedside without available guidance. The moral distress is high. While publicly funded dialysis treatment might not be prioritized in essential health care packages on the path to universal health coverage, the suffering of the patients, families and the providers must be acknowledged and addressed to increase fairness in these decisions.

"Death audit is a fight" - provider perspectives on the ethics of the Maternal and Perinatal Death Surveillance and Response (MPDSR) system in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Maternal and neonatal health are regarded as important indicators of health in most countries. Death auditing through, for example, the Maternal and Perinatal Death Surveillance and Response (MPDSR) is viewed as key to preventing maternal and newborn mortality. However, little is known about the implications of implementing perinatal auditing for healthcare professionals in low-income contexts. This study aimed to explore the ethical and practical consequences clinicians experience concerning MPDSR reporting practices in Ethiopia.  METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured in-depth individual interviews were conducted with 16 healthcare workers across professions at selected facilities in Ethiopia. The interview questions were related to clinicians' experiences with, and perceptions of, death auditing. Their strategies for coping with newborn losses and the related reporting practices were also explored. The material was analyzed following systematic text condensation, and the NVivo11 software was used for organizing and coding the data material. RESULTS: Participants experienced fear of punishment and blame in relation to the perinatal death auditing process. They found that auditing did not contribute to reducing perinatal deaths and that their motivation to stick to the obligation was negatively affected by this. Performing audits without available resources to provide optimal care or support in the current system was perceived as unfair. Some hid information or misreported information in order to avoid accusations of misconduct when they felt they were not to blame for the baby's death. Coping strategies such as engaging in exceedingly larger work efforts, overtreating patients, or avoiding complicated medical cases were described. CONCLUSIONS: Experiencing perinatal death and death reporting constitutes a double burden for the involved healthcare workers. The preventability of perinatal death is perceived as context-dependent, and both clinicians and the healthcare system would benefit from a safe and blame-free reporting environment. To support these healthcare workers in a challenging clinical reality, guidelines and action plans that are specific to the Ethiopian context are needed.

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.

Ethical dilemmas for nursing home doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic. / Etiske dilemmaer for sykehjemsleger under covid-19-pandemien.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents were particularly vulnerable to a serious clinical course of COVID-19. It was therefore decided early in the pandemic that nursing homes needed to be protected through measures such as testing and isolation regimens and restrictions on visiting. This entailed new procedures and guidelines for nursing home doctors. Norwegian and international studies show that the pandemic presented new ethical dilemmas for healthcare staff. The aim of this study was to provide a better understanding of the ethical issues faced by nursing home doctors during the pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Nine semi-structured in-depth interviews with doctors at five nursing homes in Bergen were analysed using Attride-Stirling's thematic network analysis. RESULTS: The doctors told of challenges related to deciding the level of treatment, setting limits for palliative care, adapting visiting restrictions, and assessing the use of coercion with regard to testing and isolation. This entailed difficult ethical considerations whereby doctors were faced with conflicts of interest and value judgements, central to which was consideration for the individual resident versus society. INTERPRETATION: The nursing home doctors in our study found it difficult to find a balance between protecting the residents' autonomy and preventing the spread of infection.

Priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway.

BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic has imposed challenges on healthcare systems and professionals worldwide and introduced a ´maelstrom´ of ethical dilemmas. How ethically demanding situations are handled affects employees' moral stress and job satisfaction. AIM: Describe priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians across medical specialties in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Norway. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional hospital-based survey was conducted from 23 April to 11 May 2020. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131421). FINDINGS: Among the 1606 respondents, 67% had experienced priority-setting dilemmas the previous two weeks. Healthcare workers who were directly involved in COVID-19 care, were redeployed or worked in psychiatry/addiction medicine experienced it more often. Although 59% of the respondents had seen adverse consequences due to resource scarcity, severe consequences were rare. Moral distress levels were generally low (2.9 on a 0-10 scale), but higher in selected groups (redeployed, managers and working in psychiatry/addiction medicine). Backing from existing collegial and managerial structures and routines, such as discussions with colleagues and receiving updates and information from managers that listened and acted upon feedback, were found more helpful than external support mechanisms. Priority-setting guidelines were also helpful. DISCUSSION: By including all medical specialties, nurses and physicians, and various institutions, the study provides information on how the COVID-19 mitigation also influenced those not directly involved in the COVID-19 treatment of patients. In the next stages of the pandemic response, support for healthcare professionals directly involved in outbreak-affected patients, those redeployed or those most impacted by mitigation strategies must be a priority. CONCLUSION: Empirical research of healthcare workers experiences under a pandemic are important to identify groups at risks and useful support mechanisms.

Importance of systematic deliberation and stakeholder presence: a national study of clinical ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: Case consultation performed by clinical ethics committees (CECs) is a complex activity which should be evaluated. Several evaluation studies have reported stakeholder satisfaction in single institutions. The present study was conducted nationwide and compares clinicians' evaluations on a range of aspects with the CEC's own evaluation. METHODS: Prospective questionnaire study involving case consultations at 19 Norwegian CECs for 1 year, where consultations were evaluated by CECs and clinicians who had participated. RESULTS: Evaluations of 64 case consultations were received. Cases were complex with multiple ethical problems intertwined. Clinicians rated the average CEC consult highly, being both satisfied with the process and perceiving it to be useful across a number of aspects. CEC evaluations corresponded well with those of clinicians in a large majority of cases. Having next of kin/patients present was experienced as predominantly positive, though practised by only half of the CECs. The educational function of the consult was evaluated more positively when the CEC used a systematic deliberation method. CONCLUSIONS: CEC case consultation was found to be a useful service. The study is also a favourable evaluation of the Norwegian CEC system, implying that it is feasible to implement well-functioning CECs on a large scale. There are good reasons to involve the stakeholders in the consultations as a main rule.

Clinical ethics dilemmas in a low-income setting - a national survey among physicians in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Ethical dilemmas are part of medicine, but the type of challenges, the frequency of their occurrence and the nuances in the difficulties have not been systematically studied in low-income settings. The objective of this paper was to map out the ethical dilemmas from the perspective of Ethiopian physicians working in public hospitals. METHOD: A national survey of physicians from 49 public hospitals using stratified, multi-stage sampling was conducted in six of the 11 regions in Ethiopia. Descriptive statistics were used and the responses to the open-ended question "If you have experienced any ethical dilemma, can you please describe a dilemma you have encountered in your own words?" were analyzed using a template analysis process. RESULTS: A total of 587 physicians responded (response rate 91,7%), and 565 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of 24 specified ethically challenging situations were reported to be experienced often or sometimes by more than 50% of the physicians. The most frequently reported challenge concerned resource distribution: 93% agreed that they often or sometimes had to make difficult choices due to resource limitation, and 83% often or sometimes encountered difficulties because patients were unable to pay for the preferred course of treatment. Other frequently reported difficulties were doubts about doing good or harming the patient, relating to conflicting views, concern for family welfare, disclosure issues and caring for patients not able to consent. Few reported dilemmas related to end-of-life issues. The 200 responses to the open-ended question mirrored the quantitative results. DISCUSSION: Ethiopian physicians report ethical challenges related more to bedside rationing and fairness concerns than futility discussions and conflicts about autonomy as described in studies from high-income countries. In addition to the high report of experienced challenges, gravity of the dilemmas that are present in their narratives are striking. Recognition of the everyday experiences of physicians in low-income settings should prompt the development of ethics teaching and support mechanisms, discussion of ethical guidelines as well as increase our focus on how to improve the grave resource scarcity they describe.

When the law makes doors slightly open: ethical dilemmas among abortion service providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, Ethiopia changed its abortion law to curb its high maternal mortality. This has led to a considerable reduction in deaths from unsafe abortions. Abortion is now legal if the woman's pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, if her health is endangered, if the fetus has a serious deformity, if she suffers from a physical or mental deficiency, or if she is under 18 years of age. The word of the woman, if in compliance with the law, is sufficient to qualify for an abortion. In this context, where the law makes the door slightly open, health workers become important in deciding who gets access to safe services and who doesn't, thus creating considerable ethical dilemmas. METHODS: The objective of this study was to explore abortion service providers' personal experiences and reflections, perceptions of the abortion law, and ethical and dilemmas that arise. Data collection took place from March to May 2016 in Addis Ababa, at different health clinics providing abortion services. Thirty in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 41 abortion service providers at governmental and non-governmental clinics. Content analysis was drawn upon in the interpretation of the findings. RESULTS: When working in a context where the law has slightly opened the door for abortion seeking women, the health workers describe conflicting concerns, burdensome responsibilities, and ambiguity concerning how to interpret and implement the law. They describe efforts to balance their religious faith and values against their professional obligations and concern for women's health and well-being. This negotiation is particularly evident in the care of women who fall outside the law's indications. They usually handle ethical dilemmas and decision-making alone without guidance. Moreover, many health workers face a stigma from fellow colleagues not performing abortions and therefore keep their job a secret from family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Health workers in Ethiopia experience ethical dilemmas trying to maneuver between the abortion law, their personal values, and their genuine concern for the health of women. More research is needed to further explore this.

Newborn health benefits or financial risk protection? An ethical analysis of a real-life dilemma in a setting without universal health coverage.

INTRODUCTION: High healthcare costs make illness precarious for both patients and their families' economic situation. Despite the recent focus on the interconnection between health and financial risk at the systemic level, the ethical conflict between concerns for potential health benefits and financial risk protection at the household level in a low-income setting is less understood. METHODS: Using a seven-step ethical analysis, we examine a real-life dilemma faced by families and health workers at the micro level in Ethiopia and analyse the acceptability of limiting treatment for an ill newborn to protect against financial risk. We assess available evidence and ethical issues at stake and discuss the dilemma with respect to three priority setting criteria: health maximisation, priority to the worse-off and financial risk protection. RESULTS: Giving priority to health maximisation and extra priority to the worse-off suggests, in this particular case, that limiting treatment is not acceptable even if the total well-being gain from reduced financial risk is taken into account. Our conclusion depends on the facts of the case and the relative weight assigned to these criteria. However, there are problematic aspects with the premise of this dilemma. The most affected parties-the newborn, family members and health worker-cannot make free choices about whether to limit treatment or not, and we thereby accept deprivations of people's substantive freedoms. CONCLUSION: In settings where healthcare is financed largely out-of-pocket, families and health workers face tragic trade-offs. As countries move towards universal health coverage, financial risk protection for high-priority services is necessary to promote fairness, improve health and reduce poverty.

Selling my sheep to pay for medicines - household priorities and coping strategies in a setting without universal health coverage.

BACKGROUND: The first month of life is the period with the highest risk of dying. Despite knowledge of effective interventions, newborn mortality is high and utilization of health care services remains low in Ethiopia. In settings without universal health coverage, the economy of a household is vulnerable to illness, and out-of-pocket payments may limit families' opportunities to seek health care for newborns. In this paper we explore intra-household resource allocation, focusing on how families prioritize newborn health versus other household needs and their coping strategies for managing these priorities. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in 2015 in Butajira, Ethiopia, comprising observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions with household members, health workers, and community members. Household members with hospitalized newborns or who had experienced neonatal death were primary informants. RESULTS: In this predominantly rural and poor district, households struggled to pay out-of-pocket for services such as admission, diagnostics, drugs, and transportation. When newborns fell ill, families made hard choices balancing concerns for newborn health and other household needs. The ability to seek care, obtain services, and follow medical advice depended on the social and economic assets of the household. It was common to borrow money from friends and family, or even to sell a sheep or the harvest, if necessary. In managing household priorities and high costs, families waited before seeking health care, or used cheaper traditional medicines. For poor families with no money or opportunity to borrow, it became impossible to follow medical advice or even seek care in the first place. This had fatal health consequences for the sick newborns. CONCLUSIONS: While improving neonatal health is prioritized at policy level in Ethiopia, poor households with sick neonates may prioritize differently. With limited money at hand and high direct health care costs, families balanced conflicting concerns to newborn health and family welfare. We argue that families should not be left in situations where they have to choose between survival of the newborn and economic ruin. Protection against out-of-pocket spending is key as Ethiopia moves towards universal health coverage. A necessary step is to provide prioritized newborn health care services free of charge.

Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting.

BACKGROUND: Fair prioritization of healthcare resources has been on the agenda for decades, but resource allocation dilemmas in clinical practice remain challenging. Can clinical ethics committees (CECs) be of help? The aim of the study was to explore whether and how CECs handle priority setting dilemmas and contribute to raising awareness of fairness concerns. METHOD: Descriptions of activities involving priority setting in annual reports from Norwegian CECs (2003-2015) were studied and categorized through qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-nine reports from 38 CECs were studied. We found 78 activities where resource use or priority setting were explicitly highlighted as main topics. Of these, 29 were seminars or other educational activities, 21 were deliberations on individual patient cases, whereas 28 were discussions of principled or general cases. Individual patient cases concerned various distributional dilemmas where values were at stake. Six main topics and seven roles for the CEC were identified. CECs handle issues concerning the introduction of new costly drugs, extraordinarily costly established treatment, the application of priority setting criteria, resource use for vulnerable groups, resource constraints compromising practice, and futility of care. The CEC can act as an analyst, advisor, moderator, disseminator, facilitator, watch dog, and guardian of values and laws. DISCUSSION: In order to fulfil their responsibilities in handling priority setting cases, CECs need knowledge of both the ethics and the institutionalized systems of priority setting. There is potential for developing this aspect of the CECs' work further. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian CECs are involved in priority setting decisions where they can play multiple constructive roles. In particular, they advise and raise awareness of ethical aspects in resource allocations; bridge clinical practice with higher-level decisions; and promote fair resource allocation and stakeholder rights and interests.

Towards universal health coverage for reproductive health services in Ethiopia: two policy recommendations.

Reproductive health services are crucial for maternal and child health, but universal health coverage is still not within reach in most societies. Ethiopia's goal of universal health coverage promises access to all necessary services for everyone while providing protection against financial risk. When moving towards universal health coverage, health plans and policies require contextualized knowledge about baseline indicators and their distributions. To understand more about the factors that explain coverage, we study the relationship between socioeconomic and geographic factors and the use of reproductive health services in Ethiopia, and further explore inequalities in reproductive health coverage. Based on these findings, we discuss the normative implications of these findings for health policy. Using population-level data from the Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (2011) in a multivariate logistic model, we find that family planning and use of antenatal care are associated with higher wealth, higher education and being employed. Skilled attendance at birth is associated with higher wealth, higher education, and urban location. There is large variation between Addis Ababa (the capital) and other administrative regions. Concentration indices show substantial inequalities in the use of reproductive health services. Decomposition of the concentration indices indicates that difference in wealth is the most important explanatory factor for inequality in reproductive health coverage, but other factors, such as urban setting and previous health care use, are also associated with inequalities. When aiming for universal health coverage, this study shows that different socioeconomic factors as well as health-sector factors should be addressed. Our study re-confirms the importance of a broader approach to reproductive health, and in particular the importance of inequality in wealth and geography. Poor, non-educated, non-employed women in rural areas are multidimensionally worse off. The needs of these women should be addressed through elimination of out-of-pocket costs and revision of the formula for resource allocation between regions as Ethiopia moves towards universal health coverage.

A survey of Ethiopian physicians' experiences of bedside rationing: extensive resource scarcity, tough decisions and adverse consequences.

BACKGROUND: Resource scarcity in health care is a universal challenge. In high-income settings, bedside rationing is commonly discussed and debated as a means to addressing scarcity. However, little is known about physicians' experiences in resource-limited contexts in low- income countries. Here we describe physicians' experiences regarding scarcity of resources, bedside rationing, use of various strategies to save resources, and perceptions of the consequences of rationing in Ethiopia. METHODS: A national survey was conducted amongst physicians from 49 public hospitals using stratified, multi-stage sampling in six regions. All physicians in the selected hospitals were invited to respond to a self-administered questionnaire. Data were weighted and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 587 physicians responded (91% response rate). The majority had experienced system-wide shortages of various types of medical services. The services most frequently reported to be in short supply, either daily or weekly, were access to surgery, specialist and intensive care units, drug prescriptions and admission to hospital (52, 49, 46, 47 and 46% respectively). The most common rationing strategies used daily or weekly were limiting laboratory tests, hospital drugs, radiological investigations and providing second best treatment (47, 47, 47 and 39% respectively). Availability of institutional or national guidelines for whom to see and treat first was lacking. Almost all respondents had witnessed different adverse consequences of resource scarcity; 54% reported seeing patients who, in their estimation, had died due to resource scarcity. Almost 9 out of 10 physicians were so troubled by limited resources that they often regretted their choice of profession. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first glimpses of the untold story of resource shortage and bedside rationing in Ethiopia. Physicians encounter numerous dilemmas due to resource scarcity, and they report they lack adequate guidance for how to handle them. The consequences for patients and the professionals are substantial.

Moral distress among physicians in Norway: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and compare physicians' reported moral distress in 2004 and 2021 and identify factors that could be related to these responses. DESIGN: Longitudinal survey. SETTING: Data were gathered from the Norwegian Physician Panel Study, a representative sample of Norwegian physicians, conducted in 2004 and 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 1499 physicians in 2004 and 2316 physicians in 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The same survey instrument was used to measure change in moral distress from 2004 to 2021. Logistic regression analyses examined the role of gender, age and place of work. RESULTS: Response rates were 67% (1004/1499) in 2004 and 71% (1639/2316) in 2021. That patient care is deprived due to time constraints is the most severe dimension of moral distress among physicians, and it has increased as 68.3% reported this 'somewhat' or 'very morally distressing' in 2004 compared with 75.1% in 2021. Moral distress also increased concerning that patients who 'cry the loudest' get better and faster treatment than others. Moral distress was reduced on statements about long waiting times, treatment not provided due to economic limitations, deprioritisation of older patients and acting against one's conscience. Women reported higher moral distress than men at both time points, and there were significant gender differences for six statements in 2021 and one in 2004. Age and workplace influenced reported moral distress, though not consistently for all statements. CONCLUSION: In 2004 and 2021 physicians' moral distress related to scarcity of time or unfair distribution of resources was high. Moral distress associated with resource scarcity and acting against one's conscience decreased, which might indicate improvements in the healthcare system. On the other hand, it might suggest that physicians have reduced their ideals or expectations or are morally fatigued.

Should patients who use illicit drugs be offered a second heart-valve replacement?

Intravenous drug users (IVDUs) have an elevated risk of contracting infectious endocarditis. Most of them have good effect from medical treatment, but some will need valve replacement. Until a few years ago, our hospital withheld valve surgery if patients with intravenous drug dependency and infectious endocarditis came to need a second valve replacement. However, there are no consensus guidelines for treatment of this group of patients, and a dearth of data on the effects and benefits of interventions. Using a method of ethical analysis, we here discuss whether it is appropriate to offer valve surgery to drug users for a second time.