One of the most challenging aspects of the first round of vaccinations is deciding who will receive the first dose of a limited supply. The need for a medical system of action to combat pandemics outside of control has meant that most places have prioritized doctors and nurses who provide the majority of face-to-face patient care. But a failure to prioritize these caregivers at Stanford Medical Center seems to have prompted many of their doctors to file complaints today.
Ars received a copy of an open letter sent by the Chief Medical Residents to the Stanford administration outlining the difficulties prompted by these complaints.
In the U.S., residency occurs after finishing medical school, and it is a requirement to practice medicine. Residents usually work under the direction of a physician in a training program at teaching hospitals, and learn to use a specific branch of medicine, such as inpatient or pediatric medicine. In many cases, alliances are followed by alliances, which are used to develop further specializations. Since these positions are both temporary and necessary for the use of medicine, however, those who use them in hospitals have little political pressure.
Despite not being involved in the management of most hospitals, residents and relatives provide most of the direct care to patients undergoing MDs. (nurses and other patient care specialists also provide a lot). Therefore, residents would be expected to be at greatest risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. However, according to the figures cited in the letter, less than one percent of Stanford residents and relatives will receive the vaccine using the first round of doses.
Despite what appears to be an obvious loss, an email sent by residents with Stanford Chief Medical Officer Niraj Sehgal and anonymously told Ars that the plan would go ahead anyway. Despite Seghal’s email clearly stating “I personally couldn’t feel worse about it,” Thursday’s message suggests that the priority for the administration is just to understand what went wrong. Residents are expected to wait until next week, when more vaccines are expected to be available.
That response prompted a brutal letter (also sent yesterday) from 17 key residents of the hospital. He also launched the protests that took place today. The main residents’ letter details the problems.
Despite repeated promises to prioritize staff face-to-face providers in this first phase of vaccine administration, we have learned that only seven residents / relatives were included at eventually. There is as yet no arctic plan to vaccinate the 1,300+ residents and relatives, including those on the front line treating COVID-19 patients directly.
Stanford’s decision to prioritize residents and relatives is unprotected according to science, purpose, ethics, and equality. Many of us know of a senior faculty who has been working from home since the outbreak began in March 2020, with no patient responsibility, who was selected for vaccination. In the meantime, we and residents will be wearing N95 masks for the tenth month of this pandemic without a clear and unambiguous plan for our protection in place.
This letter seeks a number of steps in response to the problem immediately, including an explanation of how the algorithm rendered the results it produced, and an explanation of why, if its result appeared to be the result. as early as Tuesday, the administration decided to follow through with the plan it had made even though it had three days to design a better one. Residents want a plan to get the vaccine as soon as possible, while allowing the injections to be put down because of the flu-like symptoms. What is usually expected when the immune system responds to the vaccine.
In the longer term, it lists things that would be needed to restore residents’ confidence in the hospital’s administration. These largely revolve around placing resident representatives in power positions within the hospital hierarchy, including on the Board of Directors and the Graduate Medical Education Committee. hospitals. Meanwhile, complaints have continued throughout Friday.
Determining how to prioritize a limited resource is going to create a lot of tension over the next six months, and there will be decisions that can be argued, even with good intentions. aca. If the residents’ account is inaccurate, however, it is difficult to assume that there is good intentions in this plan. Instead, it appears that the external administration applied decisions to an algorithm and did not question the result even after it became apparent that it was a problem.
We have asked Stanford for feedback and will update this story if we find any.