Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained healthcare systems by creating a tragic imbalance between needs and resources. Governments and healthcare organizations have adapted to this pronounced scarcity by applying allocation guidelines to facilitate life-or-death decision-making, reduce bias, and save as many lives as possible. However, we argue that in societies beset by longstanding inequities, these approaches fall short as mortality patterns for historically discriminated against communities have been disturbingly higher than in the general population. Methods: We review attack and fatality rates; survey allocation protocols designed to deal with the extreme scarcity characteristic of the earliest phases of the pandemic; and highlight the larger ethical perspectives (Utilitarianism, non-Utilitarian Rawlsian justice) that might justify such allocation practices. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically amplified the dire effects of disparities with respect to the social determinants of health. Patients in historically marginalized groups not only have significantly poorer health prospects but also lower prospects of accessing high quality medical care and benefitting from it even when available. Thus, mortality among minority groups has ranged from 1.9 to 2.4 times greater than the rest of the population. Standard allocation schemas, that prioritize those most likely to benefit, perpetuate and may even exacerbate preexisting systemic injustices. Conclusions: To be better prepared for the inevitable next pandemic, we must urgently begin the monumental project of addressing and reforming the structural inequities in US society that account for the strikingly disparate mortality rates we have witnessed over the course of the current pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Language and cultural barriers can impede communication between patients and clinicians, exacerbating health inequity. Additional complications can arise when family members, intending to protect their loved ones, ask clinicians to lie or not disclose to patients their diagnoses, prognoses, or intervention options. Clinicians must express respect for patients' and families' cultural, religious, and social norms regarding health care decision making, but they might also be ethically troubled by some decisions' effects on patients' health outcomes. This article suggests strategies for clinicians trying to overcome linguistic and cultural barriers to equitable patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article will describe a year-long (2010–11) joint project between Columbia University Medical Center's Health Sciences Library and the Institute for Family Health (IFH), a network of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serving disadvantaged populations in New York State. This National Institutes of Health-funded pilot project aimed to (a) determine the medical literature and training needs of IFH personnel, (b) develop generic licensing agreements with publishers that would enable a health sciences library to provide access to electronic resources for FQHC personnel, and (c) develop reference/education services for IFH personnel. How the reference and education aims were met will be described and discussed here as the lessons learned from this project may be useful to librarians considering doing instructional outreach to unaffiliated health professionals working at FQHCs nationwide. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]