The COVID-19 pandemic has evidenced the chronic inequality that exists between populations and communities as regards global healthcare. Vaccination, an appropriate tool for the prevention of infection, should be guaranteed by means of proportionate interventions to defeat such inequality in populations and communities affected by a higher risk of infection. Equitable criteria of justice should be identified and applied with respect to access to vaccination and to the order in which it should be administered. This article analyzes, as regards the worldwide distribution of anti-COVID-19 vaccines, the various ways the principle of equity has been construed and applied or even overlooked. The main obstacle to equal access to vaccines is vaccine nationalism. The perception of equity varies with the differing reference values adopted. Adequate response to needs appears to be the principal rule for achieving the criterion of equity in line with distributive justice. Priorities must be set equitably based on rational parameters in accordance with current needs. The entire process must be governed by transparency, from parameter identification to implementation. The issue of equal access to vaccination affects the entire world population, necessitating specific protective interventions. In light of this, the World Health Organization (WHO) has devised the COVAX plan to ensure that even the poorest nations of the world receive the vaccine; certain initiatives are also supported by the European Union (EU). This pandemic has brought to the fore the need to build a culture of equitable relationships both in each country’s own domain and with the rest of the world.

No abstract

ImportanceDuring the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a complete physical isolation has been worldwide introduced. The impossibility of visiting their loved ones during the hospital stay causes additional distress for families: in addition to the worries about clinical recovery, they may feel exclusion and powerlessness, anxiety, depression, mistrust in the care team and post-traumatic stress disorder. The impossibility of conducting the daily meetings with families poses a challenge for healthcare professionals.ObjectiveThis paper aims to delineate and share consensus statements in order to enable healthcare team to provide by telephone or video calls an optimal level of communication with patient’s relatives under circumstances of complete isolation.Evidence reviewPubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness and the AHCPR Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Reports were explored from 1999 to 2019. Exclusion criteria were: poor or absent relevance regarding the aim of the consensus statements, studies prior to 1999, non-English language. Since the present pandemic context is completely new, unexpected and unexplored, there are not randomised controlled trials regarding clinical communication in a setting of complete isolation. Thus, a multiprofessional taskforce of physicians, nurses, psychologists and legal experts, together with some family members and former intensive care unit patients was established by four Italian national scientific societies. Using an e-Delphi methodology, general and specific questions were posed, relevant topics were argumented, until arriving to delineate position statements and practical checklist, which were set and evaluated through an evidence-based consensus procedure.FindingsTen statements and two practical checklists for phone or video calls were drafted and evaluated; they are related to who, when, why and how family members must be given clinical information under circumstances of complete isolation.Conclusions and relevanceThe statements and the checklists offer a structured methodology in order to ensure a good-quality communication between healthcare team and family members even in isolation, confirming that time dedicated to communication has to be intended as a time of care.

End-of-life decisions represent one of the most complex and challenging issues in pediatric intensive care. These recommendations aim to offer Italian pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) teams a framework for the end-of-life decision-making process. The paper proposes a process based on the principle that the use of a diagnostic or therapeutic tool must comply with a 'criterion of proportionality'. Appropriately informed parents, as natural interpreters and advocates of the best interests of their child, can contribute in assessing the burdensomeness of the treatment and determining its proportionality. The decision to limit, withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments considered disproportionate represents a clinically and ethically correct choice. This decision should be made (a) collectively by PICU team and the other caregivers, (b) with the explicit involvement of parents, and (c) noting in the patient's clinical record the decisions taken and the reasons behind them. The withdrawing or withholding of life support can never entail the abandonment of the patient nor the withdrawal of any therapy aimed at treating any form of suffering. No action aimed at deliberately hastening the death of the patient is ever acceptable. These recommendations advocate a decision as far as possible shared by patient (whenever feasible), parents and caregivers. Ensuring that all involved are kept fully informed and that there is open and timely communication between them is the key to achieving this. It is the physician in charge of the patient's care and the head of the unit who bear the main responsibility for the final decision.

BackgroundIn advanced health services, a main objective is to promote the culture of safety and clinical risk management. In this regard, the reporting of sentinel events fits within a perspective of error analysis, attempting to propose solutions aimed at preventing a new occurrence of the harmful event. The purpose of this study is to analyze the contribution of medico-legal litigation in the management of clinical risk and to propose an organizational model so as to coordinate the intervention of clinical risk management and medico-legal services.MethodsRetrospective review of 206 cases of medico-legal litigation, settled against a Hospital of a North-eastern city in Italy from January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015.ResultsApproximately 20% of cases, that are classifiable as “sentinel events”, were not reported due to various factors. The reason that these events are under-reported is mainly due to the latency between the event itself and its manifestation as a serious damage to health as well as the discomfort in reporting the events of this kind, which is still widespread among healthcare workers.The systematic research of the available documentation for medico-legal purposes permits the acquisition of more information concerning the clinical event, thereby increasing the number and accuracy of the reports to the clinical risk unit.ConclusionThe analysis of medico-legal litigation is a valid tool to enhance the reporting of “sentinel events”. One possible proposal is the implementation of an organizational model to establish a rapid procedure for the reporting of sentinel events during the evaluation of medico-legal litigations.