Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Crit Care Med. Mar 9, 2025; 14(1): 97006
Published online Mar 9, 2025. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v14.i1.97006
Healthcare providers’ perspectives on factors influencing their critical care decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international pilot survey
Sonali Vadi, Neha Sanwalka, Pramod Thaker
Sonali Vadi, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Institute, Mumbai 400053, Mahārāshtra, India
Neha Sanwalka, Department of Statistics, HCJMRI, Jehangir Hospital, Pune 411001, Mahārāshtra, India
Pramod Thaker, Medical Ethics Fellowship, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02138, United States
Author contributions: Vadi S and Thaker P conceived the presented idea; Vadi S and Thaker P created the questionnaire; Sanwalka N performed the statistical analysis; Vadi S and Sanwalka N wrote the manuscript; Vadi S, Sanwalka N and Thaker P contributed to the final version of the manuscript.
Institutional review board statement: As this study did not collect information from patients and this was an anonymous and voluntary survey that was addressed to physicians, the study did not require approval by the Ethics Committee.
Informed consent statement: Informed consent was obtained via Google Forms before collecting data.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors report no conflict-of-interest.
Data sharing statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
STROBE statement: The authors have read the STROBE Statement-checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement-checklist of items.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Sonali Vadi, MD, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Institute, Four Bungalows, Mumbai 400053, Mahārāshtra, India. sonalivadi@hotmail.com
Received: May 20, 2024
Revised: October 24, 2024
Accepted: November 19, 2024
Published online: March 9, 2025
Processing time: 205 Days and 3 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND

Understanding a patient's clinical status and setting priorities for their care are two aspects of the constantly changing process of clinical decision-making. One analytical technique that can be helpful in uncertain situations is clinical judgment. Clinicians must deal with contradictory information, lack of time to make decisions, and long-term factors when emergencies occur.

AIM

To examine the ethical issues healthcare professionals faced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the factors affecting clinical decision-making.

METHODS

This pilot study, which means it was a preliminary investigation to gather information and test the feasibility of a larger investigation was conducted over 6 months and we invited responses from clinicians worldwide who managed patients with COVID-19. The survey focused on topics related to their professional roles and personal relationships. We examined five core areas influencing critical care decision-making: Patients' personal factors, family-related factors, informed consent, communication and media, and hospital administrative policies on clinical decision-making. The collected data were analyzed using the χ2 test for categorical variables.

RESULTS

A total of 102 clinicians from 23 specialties and 17 countries responded to the survey. Age was a significant factor in treatment planning (n = 88) and ventilator access (n = 78). Sex had no bearing on how decisions were made. Most doctors reported maintaining patient confidentiality regarding privacy and informed consent. Approximately 50% of clinicians reported a moderate influence of clinical work, with many citing it as one of the most important factors affecting their health and relationships. Clinicians from developing countries had a significantly higher score for considering a patient's financial status when creating a treatment plan than their counterparts from developed countries. Regarding personal experiences, some respondents noted that treatment plans and preferences changed from wave to wave, and that there was a rapid turnover of studies and evidence. Hospital and government policies also played a role in critical decision-making. Rather than assessing the appropriateness of treatment, some doctors observed that hospital policies regarding medications were driven by patient demand.

CONCLUSION

Factors other than medical considerations frequently affect management choices. The disparity in treatment choices, became more apparent during the pandemic. We highlight the difficulties and contradictions between moral standards and the realities physicians encountered during this medical emergency. False information, large patient populations, and limited resources caused problems for clinicians. These factors impacted decision-making, which, in turn, affected patient care and healthcare staff well-being.

Keywords: Survey; Clinical decision-making; COVID-19 pandemic

Core Tip: Ethical principles guide healthcare practitioners (HCPs) in their everyday practice. However, in unstable situations such as pandemics, the principles of good decision-making can often conflict, leaving clinicians perplexed about the best course of action. HCPs faced ethical dilemmas involving duty of care, justice, and dignity. In the absence of evidence, clinical judgments were made using value-based approaches. The pandemic exposed gaps in health care availability, causing providers to experience high levels of stress and worry. It is important to view this as an opportunity to strengthen public health funding policies.