Objectives: More than 1 year after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic it is becoming increasingly clear that vaccines will prove to be essential in combating this global pandemic. The demand for such vaccines is great (since nearly everyone is a candidate for vaccination) yet supplies are currently limited. This raises clear ethical questions regarding the current and future Covid-19 vaccines. Methods: In this paper we highlight the several ethical questions that are raised using a three-fold categorization. We will discuss questions concerning: (1) the design and testing of vaccines; (2) who gets the vaccines; and (3) the tensions between public health and individual interest/autonomy. Each of these three more broad categories encompasses many different and concrete ethical questions. Results: We argue that different ethical frameworks apply both across these three categories, but also within these categories. Conclusion: Despite the fact that ethical conflict might not completely disappear, we argue that distinguishing and discussing separate questions from an ethical perspective can help create the necessary clarity and provide an ethical justification in favour of particular vaccination issues.

ABSTRACT Introduction Health-care organizations are facing a high burden of ergonomic occupational accidents, and prevention is a continuous point of interest. In this manuscript, we describe the characteristics of ergonomic accidents in a large Belgian university hospital and discuss the value of near misses. Methods Combining databases, we identified the frequency [number of accidents × 106 hours worked per year], severity (number of days off work × 103 hours worked per year), and profile of the victims of occupational ergonomic accidents (with absence from work) or incidents or near-misses (without absence from work). Ergonomic accidents and incidents include slips, trips, falls, injurious body movements, overexertion, and handling heavy weights. Results In a period of 23 years, we noticed a significant decrease in the frequency of ergonomic accidents (from about 7 to about 4 standard units), without changes in the severity. The decrease in the frequency of accidents is mirrored by an increase in the frequency of incidents (from about 4 to about 6 standard units). Female and older employees are more vulnerable to accidents, and the frequency was between two and four times higher for employees mostly involved in manual tasks compared to employees mostly involved in managerial tasks. The profile of the victims and the causes of accidents and incidents were identical. Conclusion Although it is premature to assume a cause–consequence relationship between incidents and accidents, it is tempting to speculate that the increased ratio of the frequencies of incidents over accidents might be one of the variables reflecting the adequacy of preventive measures and the growth of safety behavior.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical waste EWC/EURAL code 180103* (infectious medical waste) and 180104 (non-infectious medical waste) was investigated in 6 university hospitals and 6 general hospitals. Data on the number of in-hospital patients and on quantity and volume of waste were obtained during 2019 (control period) and in 2020 up to March 2021 (COVID-19 period) for the hospitals, from the waste managing company, and from the regional destruction facility. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 on the surface of waste recipients was analyzed using RTPCR. We found that the effect of the pandemic on the total weight of waste is limited during the first wave (March 2020), while during the second wave, the quantity of waste type 180103* increased. The main effect is a nearly doubling of the volume of waste during both waves caused by the use of cardboard hospital boxes with a yellow inner plastic bag. We demonstrated that the average weight of these cardboard boxes generated for the treatment of COVID-19 patients is significantly lower compared to the weight of the waste from non-COVID-19 patients. COVID-19-related health care activities caused a weight increase of the 180103* waste from historical data (0.2-1.4 kg/day/bed) up to 5-8 kg/day/bed. RT-PCR analysis of swabs demonstrated the absence of viral RNA on personal protection materials and on the surface of recipients containing the waste. We conclude that COVID-19-related hospital waste is predominantly of the EWC 180104 type.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an immense and worldwide impact. In light of future pandemics or subsequent waves of COVID-19 it is crucial to focus on the ethical issues that were and still are raised in this COVID-19 crisis. In this paper, we look at issues that are raised in the testing and tracing of patients with COVID-19. We do this by highlighting and expanding on an approach suggested by Fineberg that could serve as a public health approach. In this way, we highlight several ethical issues. As regards testing, questions are raised such as whether it is ethical to use less reliable tests in order to increase testing capacity or minimize harm for patients. Another issue is how wide testing should be and whether selective testing is in accordance with principles of social justice. Patients who have recovered from COVID-19 might have some degree of immunity but attributing certain 'immunopriviliges' raises ethical questions. The use of various tracing methodologies (mobile apps or databases and trained tracers) raised evident questions of social justice and privacy. We argue why it is key to always uphold a test of proportionality where a fair balance must be sought.

BACKGROUND:In the organization of health care and health care systems, there is an increasing trend towards integrated care. Policy-makers from different countries are creating policies intended to promote cooperation and collaboration between health care providers, while facilitating the integration of different health care services. Hopes are high, as such collaboration and integration of care are believed to save resources and improve quality. However, policy-makers are likely to encounter various challenges and limitations when attempting to turn these great ideas into effective policies. In this paper, we look into these challenges.MAIN BODY:We argue that the organization of health care and integrated care is of public concern, and should thus be of crucial interest to policy-makers. We highlight three challenges or limitations likely to be encountered by policy-makers in integrated care. These are: (1) conceptual challenges; (2) empirical/methodological challenges; and (3) resource challenges. We will argue that it is still unclear what integrated care means and how we should measure it. 'Integrated care' is a single label that can refer to a great number of different processes. It can describe the integration of care for individual patients, the integration of services aimed at particular patient groups or particular conditions, or it can refer to institution-wide collaborations between different health care providers. We subsequently argue that health reform inevitably possesses a political context that should be taken into account. We also show how evidence supporting integrated care may not guarantee success in every context. Finally, we will discuss how promoting collaboration and integration might actually demand more resources. In the final section, we look at three different paradigmatic examples of integrated care policy: Norway, the UK's NHS, and Belgium.CONCLUSIONS:There seems widespread agreement that collaboration and integration are the way forward for health care and health care systems. Nevertheless, we argue that policy-makers should remain careful; they should carefully consider what they hope to achieve, the amount of resources they are willing to invest, and how they will evaluate the success of their policy.

Objectives: Health care systems worldwide are changing and taking new forms. The old, more hierarchically oriented, model with individual institutional and bilateral interactions between primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary care is being replaced by an integrated and dynamic network model. We aim to look at what role university hospitals will play in this future organization of health care.Method: In this paper, we look at the relevant literature on the history of academic medicine and university hospitals. Subsequently, we look at the challenges university hospitals are facing according to contemporary literature on the topic.Results: Our current model of academic medicine with its university hospitals finds its origin in the institutionalization of the academic mission in the late 18th century. Currently, the sustainability of the model is under immense pressure. University hospitals are facing economic challenges, teaching challenges and research challenges. However, there is reason to believe that they can continue to play a role of importance in tomorrow's medicine. The organization of health care is undergoing two important changes. The first is the evolution towards a more dynamic and integrated network model. University hospitals can become an important hub within this network. The second change is an evolution towards evidence based medicine and translational research.Conclusion: Due to their unique tripartite mission, we argue that university hospitals can continue to play an important and critical role in promoting evidence-based medicine and speedy translation of new evidence.

The authors regret that during an internal audit of their previous work1Coppens M.J. Versichelen L.F. Mortier E.P. Struys M.M. Do we need inhaled anaesthetics to blunt arousal, haemodynamic responses to intubation after i.v. induction with propofol, remifentanil, rocuronium?.Br J Anaesth. 2006; 97: 835-841Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar based on some findings published by Carlisle,2Carlisle J.B. Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals.Anaesthesia. 2017; 72: 944-952Crossref PubMed Scopus (115) Google Scholar it came to their attention that some typographical errors occurred in Table 1 of the original publication. The correct anthropometric data for the four populations should be:Table 1Groups. Data are mean (sd)Group DGroup NDGroup SGroup NSNumber of patients24232524Age (yr)36 (10)35 (9)35 (12)37 (11)Weight (kg)70 (12)68 (12)67 (12)69 (13)Height (cm)171 (10)170 (9)174 (9)171 (8) Open table in a new tab The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Background. The aim of this study was to determine whether, after propofol, rocuronium and remifentanil rapid sequence induction, inhaled anaesthetic agents should be started before intubation to minimize autonomic and arousal response during intubation.Methods. One hundred ASA I and II patients were randomized to receive 1 MAC of desflurane or sevoflurane during manual ventilation or not. Anaesthesia was induced with an effect-site-controlled infusion of remifentanil at 2 ng ml(-1) for 3 min. Patients then received propofol to induce loss of consciousness (LOC). Rocuronium (0.6 mg kg(-1)) was given at LOC and the trachea was intubated after 90 s of manual breathing support (=baseline) with or without inhaled anaesthetics. Vital signs and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded until 10 min post-intubation to detect autonomic and arousal response.Results. A significant increase in BIS value after intubation was seen in all groups. The increases were mild, even in those not receiving pre-intubation inhaled anaesthetics. However, in contrast to sevoflurane, desflurane appeared to partially blunt the arousal response. Heart rate, systolic and diastolic pressure increase similarly in all groups.Conclusions. Desflurane and sevoflurane were unable to blunt the arousal reflex completely, as measured by BIS, although the reflex was significantly less when desflurane was used. Rapid sequence induction with remifentanil, propofol and rocuronium and without inhaled anaesthetics before intubation can be done without dangerous haemodynamic and arousal responses at intubation after 90 s.

See also the project sponsored by the ULB-UNIL privileged partnership "Les determinants sociologiques de l’offre et de la demande de chirurgie plastique genitale : reparatrice chez les femmes avec une MGF vs. cosmetique sur vulve intacte" (7/2018-6/2020). Online summary: https://www.unil.ch/international/en/home/menuguid/partenariats-privilegies/universite-libre-de-bruxelles/projets-2018/offre-et-demande-de-chirurgie-plastique.html

The organisation of health care is rapidly changing. There is a trend to move away from individual health care institutions towards transmural integrated care and interorganizational collaboration in networks. However, within such collaboration and network there is often likely to be a pluralism of values as different health care institutions often have very different values. For this paper, we examine three different models of how we believe institutions can come to collaborate in networks, and thus reap the potential benefits of such collaboration, despite having different moral beliefs or values. A first way is the pragmatic way in which the different health care institutions avoid ethical reflection and focus on solutions. A second possible route is that of consensus where health care institutions base their collaboration on values that they all share. The third, and final, approach is that of compromise. Although moral compromise is often seen in a negative light, we argue that in many cases compromise might be necessary and ethically justified. In a final section, we will shift our focus from discussing various theoretical methods to allow collaboration to the potential content of consensus or compromise.

Much is changing in health care organization today. A perspective or paradigm that is gaining ever increasing momentum is that of translational, extramural and integrated care. Current research suggests many potential benefits for integrated care and health care networks but the ethical issues are less frequently emphasized. Showing that integrated care can be beneficial, does not mean it is automatically ethically justified. We will argue for three ethical requirements such health care networks should meet. Subsequently we will look at the mechanisms driving the formation of networks and examine how these can cause networks to meet or fail to meet these ethical requirements or obligations. The three mechanisms we will examine are government, civil society and market mechanisms, which, we argue, should be balanced properly. Each mechanism is able to provide a relevant ethical perspective to health care networks. However, when the balance is skewed towards a single mechanism, health care networks might fail to promote one or more of the ethical requirements.

Background: Health care organization is entering a new age. Focus is increasingly shifting from individual health care institutions to interorganizational collaboration and health care networks. Much hope is set on such networks which have been argued to improve economic efficiency and quality of care. However, this does not automatically mean they are always ethically justified. A relevant question that remains is what ethical obligations or duties one can ascribe to these networks especially because networks involve many risks. Due to their often amorphous and complex structure, collective responsibility and accountability may increase while individual responsibility goes down. Main body: We argue that a business ethics approach to ethical obligations for health care networks, is problematic and we propose to opt for a patient perspective. Using the classic four principles of biomedical ethics (justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence and autonomy) it is possible to identify specific ethical duties. Based on the principle of justice, health care networks have an ethical duty to provide just and fair access for all patients and to be transparent to patients about how access is regulated. The principle of nonmaleficence implies an obligation to guarantee patient safety, whereas the principle of beneficence implies an obligation for health care networks to guarantee continuity of care in all its dimensions. Finally, the principle of autonomy is translated into a specific obligation to promote and respect patient choice. Networks that fail to meet any of these conditions are suspect and cannot be justified ethically. Conclusions: Faced with daunting challenges, the health care system is changing rapidly. Currently many hopes ride on integrated care and broad health care networks. Such networks are the topic of empirical debate, but more attention should be given to the ethical aspects. Health care networks raise new and pressing ethical issues and we are in need of a framework for assessing how and when such networks are justified.

BACKGROUND:Multiple studies have investigated the outcome of integrated care programs for chronically ill patients. However, few studies have addressed the specific role hospitals can play in the downstream collaboration for chronic disease management. Our objective here is to provide a comprehensive overview of the role of the hospitals by synthesizing the advantages and disadvantages of hospital interference in the chronic discourse for chronically ill patients found in published empirical studies.METHOD:Systematic literature review. Two reviewers independently investigated relevant studies using a standardized search strategy.RESULTS:Thirty-two articles were included in the systematic review. Overall, the quality of the included studies is high. Four important themes were identified: the impact of transitional care interventions initiated from the hospital's side, the role of specialized care settings, the comparison of inpatient and outpatient care, and the effect of chronic care coordination on the experience of patients.CONCLUSION:Our results show that hospitals can play an important role in transitional care interventions and the coordination of chronic care with better outcomes for the patients by taking a leading role in integrated care programs. Above that, the patient experiences are positively influenced by the coordinating role of a specialist. Specialized care settings, as components of the hospital, facilitate the coordination of the care processes. In the future, specialized care centers and primary care could play a more extensive role in care for chronic patients by collaborating.

Objectives Effective and efficient communication is crucial in healthcare. Written communication remains the most prevalent form of communication between specialised and primary care. We aimed at reviewing the literature on the quality of written communication, the impact of communication inefficiencies and recommendations to improve written communication in healthcare. Design Narrative literature review. Methods A search was carried out on the databases PubMed, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library by means of the (MeSH)terms ‘communication’, ‘primary health care’, ‘correspondence’, ‘patient safety’, ‘patient handoff’ and ‘continuity of patient care’. Reviewers screened 4609 records and 462 full texts were checked according following inclusion criteria: (1) publication between January 1985 and March 2014, (2) availability as full text in English, (3) categorisation as original research, reviews, meta-analyses or letters to the editor. Results A total of 69 articles were included in this review. It was found that poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes: discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction and inefficient use of valuable resources, both in unnecessary investigations and physician worktime as well as economic consequences. Conclusion There is room for improvement of both content and timeliness of written communication. The delineation of ownership of the communication process should be clear. Peer review, process indicators and follow-up tools are required to measure the impact of quality improvement initiatives. Communication between caregivers should feature more prominently in graduate and postgraduate training, to become engraved as an essential skill and quality characteristic of each caregiver.

Continuous sedation at the end of life is a practice that has attracted a great deal of attention. An increasing number of guidelines on the proposed correct performance of the practice have been drafted. All of the guidelines stress the importance of using sedation in proportion to the severity of the patient's symptoms, thus to reduce the patient's consciousness no more than is absolutely necessary. As different patients can have different experiences of suffering, the amount of suffering should, ideally, be assessed subjectively; that is, via communication with the patient. Continuously sedated patients are often unable to communicate, however, making subjective methods of pain assessment unusable. For these patients, the degree of consciousness is the sole available measure. It therefore seems important to adequately measure how deeply the patient is sedated, thereby allowing sedation to be increased when it is too light and decreased when it is too heavy. This is in accordance with the idea that reducing consciousness is not an ethically neutral act. Although consciousness measuring techniques are a hot topic in anesthesiology, almost no research exists on the use of such techniques in the context of continuous sedation at the end of life. This article aims to review existing techniques to measure consciousness and to evaluate their applicability, efficiency, and invasiveness for patients who are continuously sedated until death. Techniques commonly used to assess the depth of sedation in continuously sedated patients are basic clinical assessment and sedation scales, as they are often considered reliable and non-invasive. These techniques might not be very reliable, however, since it is known that some patients are nonresponsive and yet aware. Moreover, sedation scales require stimulation of the patient (for example prodding, shaking, or providing painful stimuli), and can thus be considered invasive of one's bodily integrity or dignity. Other techniques, such as EEG (electroencephalography) derivatives, may score better on reliability and invasiveness. Yet these have so far never been compared to sedation scale scores for patients receiving continuous sedation at the end of life. Therefore, we conclude that, for both clinical and ethical reasons, research into the efficiency and applicability of other techniques, such as derivatives of EEG, are urgently needed.

During endoscopic neurosurgery, direct mechanical stimulation of the brain by the endoscope and increased intracranial pressure (ICP) caused by the continuous rinsing can induce potentially lethal haemodynamic reflexes, brain ischaemia, and excessive fluid resorption.In a newly presented rat model of endoscopic neurosurgery, stereotactic access to the cerebrospinal fluid was secured and the ICP was increased by controlled infusion until complete suppression of the cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). The haematocrit (Hct) level was determined before and after the procedure. During the whole procedure, invasive arterial pressure, ICP, and heart rate were continuously recorded and evaluated in a subsequent offline analysis. After the procedure, the animals were allowed to recover and 7 days later they were killed for histological examination.Suppression of the CPP resulted in a severe hypertension combined with tachycardia or mild bradycardia. The Hct decreased from 41 to 35 over the minutes of CPP suppression. After cessation of the infusion, the ICP decreased to 37% of the plateau pressure within 2.5 s. In the first few minutes after restoration of normal ICP, five animals died because of pulmonary oedema.Upon complete suppression of the CPP, an obvious hypertension developed, often together with tachycardia, but no severe bradycardia. At high ICP levels, we observed an important translocation of irrigation fluid to the vascular space. Fatality was not caused by ischaemia or arrhythmia but due to pulmonary oedema.