Ethical issues raised in the care of the elderly during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and possible solutions for the future: a systematic review of qualitative scientific literature.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-25 DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01149-2
Mohamed Amine Bouchlaghem, Zoé Estey-Amyot, Erika Ethier, Miruna Anohim, Marie-Laurence Ouellet-Pelletier, Lyse Langlois, Félix Pageau
{"title":"Ethical issues raised in the care of the elderly during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and possible solutions for the future: a systematic review of qualitative scientific literature.","authors":"Mohamed Amine Bouchlaghem, Zoé Estey-Amyot, Erika Ethier, Miruna Anohim, Marie-Laurence Ouellet-Pelletier, Lyse Langlois, Félix Pageau","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01149-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has led governments worldwide to make ethically controversial decisions. As a result, healthcare professionals are facing several ethical dilemmas, especially in terms of healthcare services provided to senior citizens. Thus, the aim of this review is to identify and categorize ethical dilemmas as well as propose solutions regarding health care services for elderly individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative systematic review of the literature was undertaken in the first tier of the pandemic. All identified scientific and editorial articles published in English or French between December 2019 and October 2021 were included. An article was excluded if it was commercial, did not address an issue in the care of the elderly or present any qualitative data. Article eligibility was determined through a process of triangulation among three independent reviewers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initially, 69 articles met our inclusion criteria and were selected for this review. These studies can be divided into 2 distinct categories: scientific articles (17 studies) and expert opinion articles (52 articles). However, due to the large quantity of qualitative data that was extracted, only the results from the scientific literature are presented here. The analysis of the data of 17 studies has allowed the emergence of 2 main themes of ethical dilemmas: 1) access to care (3 subthemes: A) triage decisions for admission, B) access to the intensive care unit and C) vaccine allocation) and 2) infection control decisions (2 subthemes: (D) isolation and E) autonomy). Our results also revealed 4 categories of potential solutions to the encountered ethical dilemmas, namely, optimal protocols, enhanced communication, caregiver support and technological assistance (virtual team-based, AI).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ethical dilemmas that emerged from our results highlight the interest of a serious international discussion around the phenomena of ageism and its potential ethical implications for health care workers (be it under normal circumstances or exceptional circumstances such as those of a pandemic). We highly recommend that future research be undertaken to test the efficacy of the proposed solutions in providing age-friendly, dilemma-free health care and environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11763134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01149-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led governments worldwide to make ethically controversial decisions. As a result, healthcare professionals are facing several ethical dilemmas, especially in terms of healthcare services provided to senior citizens. Thus, the aim of this review is to identify and categorize ethical dilemmas as well as propose solutions regarding health care services for elderly individuals.

Methods: A qualitative systematic review of the literature was undertaken in the first tier of the pandemic. All identified scientific and editorial articles published in English or French between December 2019 and October 2021 were included. An article was excluded if it was commercial, did not address an issue in the care of the elderly or present any qualitative data. Article eligibility was determined through a process of triangulation among three independent reviewers.

Results: Initially, 69 articles met our inclusion criteria and were selected for this review. These studies can be divided into 2 distinct categories: scientific articles (17 studies) and expert opinion articles (52 articles). However, due to the large quantity of qualitative data that was extracted, only the results from the scientific literature are presented here. The analysis of the data of 17 studies has allowed the emergence of 2 main themes of ethical dilemmas: 1) access to care (3 subthemes: A) triage decisions for admission, B) access to the intensive care unit and C) vaccine allocation) and 2) infection control decisions (2 subthemes: (D) isolation and E) autonomy). Our results also revealed 4 categories of potential solutions to the encountered ethical dilemmas, namely, optimal protocols, enhanced communication, caregiver support and technological assistance (virtual team-based, AI).

Conclusions: The ethical dilemmas that emerged from our results highlight the interest of a serious international discussion around the phenomena of ageism and its potential ethical implications for health care workers (be it under normal circumstances or exceptional circumstances such as those of a pandemic). We highly recommend that future research be undertaken to test the efficacy of the proposed solutions in providing age-friendly, dilemma-free health care and environments.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
期刊最新文献
Patient autonomy and metabolic bariatric surgery: an empirical perspective. Physicians' moral distinctions between medical assistance in dying (MAiD) and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in Canada: a qualitative descriptive study. A qualitative study of the spirituality of volunteers registered for human organ donation. The impact of moral injury on healthcare workers' career calling: exploring authentic self-expression, ethical leadership, and self-compassion. Evaluating cognitive bias in clinical ethics supports: a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1