Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences.
Bringedal, Berit H; Rø, Karin Isaksson; Bååthe, Fredrik; Miljeteig, Ingrid; Magelssen, Morten.
Afiliación
  • Bringedal BH; Institute for Studies of the Medical Profession, Oslo, Norway. berit.bringedal@lefo.no.
  • Rø KI; Institute for Studies of the Medical Profession, Oslo, Norway.
  • Bååthe F; Institute for Studies of the Medical Profession, Oslo, Norway.
  • Miljeteig I; Institute of Stress Medicine - ISM at Region VGR, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  • Magelssen M; Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 22(1): 1192, 2022 Sep 22.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36138400
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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Médicos Generales / COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Qualitative_research Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Health Serv Res Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Noruega Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Médicos Generales / COVID-19 Tipo de estudio: Guideline / Qualitative_research Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Health Serv Res Asunto de la revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Noruega Pais de publicación: Reino Unido