Healthcare workers' opinions on non-medical criteria for prioritisation of access to care during the pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic generated overflow of healthcare systems in several countries. As the ethical debates focused on prioritisation for access to care with scarce medical resources, numerous recommendations were created. Late 2021, the emergence of the Omicron variant whose transmissibility was identified but whose vaccine sensitivity was still unknown, reactivated debates. Fears of the need to prioritise patients arose, particularly in France. Especially, a debate began about the role of vaccination status in the prioritisation strategy.
Material and Methods: The Ethics Committee (EC) of the University Hospital of Bordeaux (UHB), France, identified prioritisation criteria in the literature (some recommended, such as being a healthcare worker (HCW) or having consented to research, while others were discouraged, such as age with a threshold effect or vaccination status). A survey was sent within the institution in January 2022 to explore frontline physicians' adherence to these prioritisation criteria. The decision making conditions were also surveyed.
Results: In 15 days, 78/165 (47.3%) frontline physicians responded, and more widely 1286/12946 (9.9%) professionals. A majority of frontline physicians were opposed to prioritising HCWs (54/75, 72%) and even more opposed to participating in research (69/76, 89.6%). Conversely, the results were very balanced for non-recommended criteria (respectively 39/77, 50.7% and 34/69 49.3% in favour for age with a threshold effect and for vaccination status). Decisions were considered to be multi-professional and multi-disciplinary for 65/76, 85.5% and 53/77, 68.8% of frontline physicians. Responders expressed opposition to extending decision-making to representatives of patients, civil society or HCWs not involved in care.
Discussion: Prioritisation recommendations in case of scarce medical resources were not necessarily approved by the frontline physicians, or by the other HCWs. This questions the way ethical recommendations should be communicated and discussed at a local scale, but it also questions these recommendations themselves. The article also reports the experience of seeking HCWs opinions on a sensitive ethical debate in a period of crisis.
Competing Interests: Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Participants were informed through an introductive paragraph before the questionnaire. Completion of the questionnaires was considered as a acceptance of participation (inversely, the absence of response was considered as an opposition). According French Regulation, this study is not considered as a biomedical research implying human person. This study in bioethics belongs to the field of Medical Humanities, so that it does not need the approval of an ethics committee (Articles L. 1121–1 et R. 1121–1 du Code de la Santé Publique). Likewise, informed consent is not required according to French regulations. Data were anonymised and protected according the current recommendations in France. This study was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent for publication Non Applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)