Most disaster plans depend on using emergency physicians, nurses, emergency department support staff, and out-of-hospital personnel to maintain the health care system's front line during crises that involve personal risk to themselves or their families. Planners automatically assume that emergency health care workers will respond. However, we need to ask: Should they, and will they, work rather than flee? The answer involves basic moral and personal issues. This article identifies and examines the factors that influence health care workers' decisions in these situations. After reviewing physicians' response to past disasters and epidemics, we evaluate how much danger they actually faced. Next, we examine guidelines from medical professional organizations about physicians' duty to provide care despite personal risks, although we acknowledge that individuals will interpret and apply professional expectations and norms according to their own situation and values. The article goes on to articulate moral arguments for a duty to treat during disasters and social crises, as well as moral reasons that may limit or override such a duty. How fear influences behavior is examined, as are the institutional and social measures that can be taken to control fear and to encourage health professionals to provide treatment in crisis situations. Finally, the article emphasizes the importance of effective risk communication in enabling health care professionals and the public to make informed and defensible decisions during disasters. We conclude that the decision to stay or leave will ultimately depend on individuals' risk assessment and their value systems. Preparations for the next pandemic or disaster should include policies that encourage emergency physicians, who are inevitably among those at highest risk, to "stay and fight."

Traditional skills and expertise are not enough to prepare future physicians for the complexity, instability, and uncertainty of clinical practice. Responding and making meaning from ill-defined or unusual problems calls for, even demands, creativity. In this article, the author suggests expanding the traditional role of doctor as science-using, evidence-based practitioner to include that of doctor as a "maker" (creator) and artist. Such a reimagining requires a shift in how we view medical knowledge and patients' stories, as well as a new appreciation for "not-knowing" as a generative, creative space in medicine. Creative thinking deserves a central place in the training of doctors, driven by a reconceptualization of the traditional educational model to include medical disciplines, humanities scholars, artists, and designers.

Background:This case study documents the work of the Rhode Island Arts and Health Advisory Group, which convened in 2016 to develop a set of policy, clinical practice, and research recommendations for implementation by the Rhode Island Department of Health, The Rhode Island State Council on the Arts, and partners. Comprised of artists, clinicians, community members, and patients, the group partnered with researchers to complete an evidence synthesis project of arts-based health care interventions.Methods:The group took a community-engaged approach to evidence synthesis, featuring the use of online, and in-person training materials to facilitate the codesign and coexecution of the evidence synthesis protocol. The final evidence map was translated into an online evidence map to facilitate analysis and discussion on arts-based interventions in health care.Results:The evidence map informed the development of recommendations for advancing the integration of arts and health in the state. The project evaluation indicated that our community-engaged approach to evidence synthesis promoted engagement as defined by the PCORI Engagement Strategy Rubric (ie, reciprocal relationships, partnership, colearning, transparency, honesty, and trust). Participation also improved community research partners confidence in engaging with the health care system, developed greater empathy and understanding of others in the community, and increased interest in using science or research in advocacy efforts.Conclusions:Engaging community partners in evidence synthesis promotes community dialogue and engagement in research, specifically towards: (1) elucidating outcomes of import to patients and communities that are not represented in the medical literature; and (2) identifying comparisons among interventions that resonate with patients and communities.