Nurses’ professional and moral duty

Nurses have 5 fundamental responsibilities:
-to promote health
-to prevent illness
-to restore health
-to alleviate suffering
-to assist towards a peaceful death

Inherent in nursing is our duty to perform these responsibilities especially in the context of a pandemic. It is hard for many of us to turn our backs on our patients simply because we have pledged our whole lives in the service of the people.

However, times like this also beg the following questions:
Do nurses, and other health care workers, have a duty to care for patients when doing so exposes the nurses themselves to significant risks of harm and even death? More importantly, in the face of serious infectious disease, is there a duty to treat?

Our health system does not have the capacity to handle a pandemic. And this was made apparent in the previous weeks. Let me cite some experiences from the frontline (these ones I got from personal communications with nurses on the ground from various locations).
-Because of their duty to treat, some nurses were forced to perform CPR without adequate personal protective equipment or PPE on a patient with unknown COVID status.
-Some nurses left their sick family members because they were asked to report to duty.
-A nurse did not leave the patient room because her patient was unstable, unresponsive and drowning in his own urine and feces. Without any help, the nurse stayed with the patient and changed his diaper 3 times.
-Some nurses chose to stay inside patient rooms so they can properly monitor their patients because the hospital lacks proper surveillance equipment and has inadequate nursing staff. This despite hospital protocol saying that nurses should only stay in patient rooms for a maximum of two hours in an eight-hour shift.

These are some of many instances where nurses felt responsible to perform their duties despite knowing risks of harm and death. Truth be told, nurses will continue to perform their duties despite the risk of dying or acquiring the disease because many of us feel that it is our professional and moral duty to do so.

Recommendations to Address the Potential Local Nursing Shortage Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

The role of nurses has been considered crucial in managing this pandemic, most especially in implementing strategies to #flattenthecurve. While this is the case, shortage in the nursing workforce will not make the management of the pandemic any easier. We recommend an integrated approach comprised of some or all the recommendations mentioned in this policy brief. However, these recommendations are interim solutions to a possibly chronic nursing workforce shortage in the Philippines. A national investment in the nursing profession is needed to address this shortage. Such investment will require significant political will, support, and financial investment.

Thank you Neil Roy Rosales for writing this with me. Please feel free to share with your colleagues.

Link to full policy brief: Recommendations

Foster collaborative relationships

Immediately after the news broke that three doctors died due to COVID-19, people took their frustration to Twitter and were quick to blame patients for their failure to divulge accurate health and travel history. For many, this alleged ’lie’ caused the life of an unsung hero who was at the frontline battling the pandemic.

A patient withholding facts and misleading health workers is no laughing matter. Physicians cannot appropriately diagnose and treat patients unless the latter share information freely. Thus, the feelings of anger, hatred, and frustration felt by many doctors last week were all valid. These feelings make them human after all. But, this is more than a simple case of dishonesty. To directly equate a person’s death to a lie, whether intentional or not, is a bit overstretched. Alternatively, our frustration directs us to question what could have possibly gone wrong between the patient-physician relationship.

Patients also fear for their lives, much like the rest of us in the field of health care. Some patients are intimidated, only to share their whole health history after their first conversation with a health worker.  Truth be told, it is sometimes difficult to share private information to our friends and families. What more to people you barely know? Unfortunately, this is not an excuse for patients to deliberately lie about their health status.

Although motivations for withholding the truth vary from patient to patient, options to address this problem are rooted in one concept: a collaborative patient-health worker relationship. It is important, I suppose, for our patients to feel that we trust them and that they, too, can trust us. Let us allow our patients to freely verbalize their thoughts and feelings. Let us take time to listen to them so that they can put their trust in us.

Conversations with patients are almost always difficult. But given the gravity of what’s at stake, we are encouraged to find ways to expand and make better the existing lines of communication. We are encouraged to find ways to make patients more comfortable to admit embarrassing behaviors, and facts about themselves. Finally, we are encouraged to create a trusting environment embedded in the system to allow and support collaborative relationships between patients and health workers.

The frontline

As a nurse, waking up each day is a struggle knowing that there is a high risk for us to acquire the disease. However, we are constantly reminded of our duty to the people. That it is our duty and responsibility to help those in need, especially the poor, weak, and vulnerable.

Times like this make us realize that effective communication is key. Sadly, the field of health has failed to do it well in many instances. Today, more than ever, I fervently ask our leaders to first show TRANSPARENCY. Make things clear for us. Make us understand how things will be managed, coordinated, and disseminated. Make us feel that you are on top of this and that processes are as clear as they can be.

Second, I ask for CONSISTENCY. We are tired of hearing conflicting statements, especially those from the higher ranks. Such conflicting statements create confusion which in turn causes panic. Let there be a single message from a single source.

Finally, I ask for INTEGRITY. Let us not fool each other. Again, kabaro mo na. Sana hindi ka na isahan pa. Tayo-tayo dapat ang nagtutulungan. Hindi dapat nag-gugulangan. Let us be honest to each other so we can all work well together. After all, we all aim for one goal – the end of this crisis.

The coming weeks will show how resilient and responsive our health care system is. The circumstances will test how our current systems will adapt and change according to the pressing needs of the people. Our experiences during this pandemic will surely change how we will implement the UHC law in a bigger scale in the following years.

Please pray for everyone, especially those in the frontline. It is a scary, scary world and we have nobody to save us but ourselves. Ingat!

DISCLAIMER: There is no way this post pertains to a particular individual, hospital, or organization. Before you try to twist whatever I said in this post and send complaints, please clarify them first with me. Send me a message. It’s free.

Nudging in health care

We saw a dramatic change in people’s behavior brought about by information (and misinformation) regarding the worldwide spread of COVID-19. People began clamoring for more health information and others started wearing surgical face masks to protect themselves. Following advice from the Department of Health, several organizations cancelled their scheduled conferences and conventions this year.

What surprised me, however, is the fact that many food, retail, and service companies started providing hand sanitizers not only to their employees but also to their customers. Schools, hospitals, and shopping malls did the same, and even placed posters at entry and exit points to inform the public on infection control measures that should be observed within their premises. The placement of posters, the availability of and accessibility to alcohol or hand sanitizers created a positive reinforcement that influenced individual and group decision-making leading to a change in behavior. In behavioral science, this is best explained by the “Nudge Theory”.

The reaction of the Filipino community to this actual health threat is a manifestation of how the theory works. Based on observation, some people who saw hand sanitizers and alcohols on counter tops actually rubbed some on their hands. To an extent, the mere presence of these alcohol-containing preparations ‘nudged’ people to make the right decision which is to practice hand hygiene. Studies in other countries such as the UK have been successful in providing empirical evidence to support the use of nudging to influence behavior in health care settings. Such practice, however, has not been extensively explored in the Philippines.

While we focus on containing the local transmission of COVID-19 in Metro Manila for now, health care professionals and policy makers can take this opportunity to review existing policies on hand hygiene, infection control, and even outbreaks. We have been accustomed to using the rational choice model to create policies influencing people’s behavior. Using this model, we assume that humans are rational beings and given adequate information, they will rationally act on their own self-interest. Sadly, this approach does not work well in real life. Fortunately, the nudge theory, introduced by Nobel-prize winner Richard Thaler and law professor Cass Sunstein, provides policy-makers with another approach to influencing behavior. This theory suggests that we cannot stop people from being irrational because much of instant decision-making is influenced by context and environment. We can, however, seek to influence decision-making impulses to produce outcomes that are beneficial both at the individual and societal levels.

At the moment, we are pleased and thankful for the initiatives of private companies to educate their employees and customers on proper hand hygiene, and providing the necessary facilities to practice hand hygiene procedures. In the future, we should hope to see how the government will use nudging techniques to influence people’s behavior. As the theory can be applied even in realms outside health, nudging presents a low-cost and effective policy option that can perhaps complement or replace traditional regulation with nudges to influence people’s everyday choices without restricting their freedom of choice, and imposing penal charges or taxation.

Top Nine Questions This 2019

It has been a great year. I cannot thank enough the people who have been part of this amazing 2019!

reinerlorenzo

In the past, I wrote top lessons I learned during the year. For this year, I will have to put them aside and share with you nine questions I had in 2019 that remain unanswered (or partially answered). I hope to find answers in the coming new year.

  1. Can the healthcare system achieve both equity and efficiency at the same time? Or are the two concepts contradictory in healthcare? Should one be achieved before the other?
  2. How can we make the procurement process be more flexible and less corrupt while being strict on the quality of materials procured?
  3. What incentives could eventually reconcile self-interest and social interest?
  4. Should state-funded health care be rationed? How should the government ration health care to meet the current demand? How does rationing of care contribute to universal health care?
  5. Does the current national social health insurance program increase or decrease the efficiency of the use of scarce resources?  Is ‘access’ rather than ‘utilization’ of health services a better measure of equity in health care?
  6. Do patients’ preferences affect the supply of health care services? Or are variations in the supply of health care services in various settings simply a response to high levels of patient demand? If not, how much do patients’ preferences contribute to utilization of health care services?
  7. How do we go about the Filipino culture of putting too much trust on one’s doctor to the extent that we lose exercising our right to participate in decision-making?
  8. Do we cast our nurses as “global goods” rather than “domestic providers” of health care, implicating them as sources of remittance income rather than for their potential contributions to the local health system? Is this kind of trade (trade in health services/providers) not only motivated by the desire for revenue, but also by the desire to cope with overproduction and lack of opportunities for nurses in the Philippines?
  9. Do people’s preferences and tastes change in situations where there are very few choices? Or do they develop an acquired taste/preference because of limitations posed by societal inequities?

Ampatuan Massacre Promulgation

It took ten years to reach this point; a manifestation of the slow, inefficient process of our Justice System.

Court’s decision today on ‘Ampatuan Massacre’, however, gives us hope that justice is not entirely elusive. Even those who cling to power cannot evade justice.

Justice will only be truly served when our journalists and other members of the press can continue to tell the truth without fearing for their lives. There is more that needs to be done.

Call for fair and adequate hazard pay

How much is the price of upholding the rights of nurses in the country? For some, it costs nothing.

Nurses are at the frontline of the health care delivery system. They become the first and last health workers in contact with patients and their families. As such, nurses are exposed to low- and high-risk hazards during their working hours. Exposure to these hazards could result in discomfort, illness, and even death. It is imperative, therefore, to provide additional compensation to nurses performing their jobs in hazardous work areas.

Through Republic Act No. 7305 or the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers, the State recognizes the need to provide extra compensation to nurses for performing duties that expose them to potential health hazards. However, recent reports slap us with the reality that some nurses in the country receive little to no hazard pay.

We aspire for fair and adequate hazard pay for nurses in the Philippines. Fair in the sense that all nurses are well-compensated considering the health risks associated with the nature of their work. Adequate in the sense that it follows the rates set forth by the law. Fair and adequate hazard pay ensures the protection of nurses who relentlessly offer their lives to the service of the people. Fair and adequate hazard pay puts premium on the lives of both the health care workers and the patients they serve.
While we recognize the financial limitations being experienced by many local and provincial government units, this should not restrain the government from exercising its lawful duty to protect health workers from the dangers associated with the delivery of health care.

I call on the Department of Health (DOH) to look at the undocumented issues surrounding the non-payment of hazard pay experienced by nurses in various parts of the country. Moreover, I call on the local and provincial government units to (1) review its annual budgetary allocation and bring back health at the top of its priorities and, (2) ensure that nurses are compensated hazard allowances equivalent to the appropriate percentages as specified by the law. Finally, I call on Congress, DOH and the Department of Budget and Management to revisit the Magna Carta for Public Health Workers, specifically the provisions on salaries, hazard pay, and other forms of allowances.

The right to health is not limited to a privileged few. The government carries the burden of ensuring that this right is upheld as a human right equally enjoyed by all Filipinos. The promises of universal health care cannot be realized when the primary drivers of the health care system, our health care workers, are left at the brim.

Pen Point 42

Given adequate information, the market theory assumes that consumers know what is best for themselves; hence, they make choices that maximize their total satisfaction. If this assumption is wrong, markets may not efficiently produce. We call this satisfaction consumers gain from consuming a good or service as “utility”. The satisfaction (or utility) depends on the quantity and mix of goods and services chosen by a consumer. The theory holds that consumers get more satisfaction from more goods and services but the increase in satisfaction from consuming additional units gradually diminishes. In health care, how do consumers go about choosing the mix of goods and services which give them the maximum total utility? In places where there are few sources of health care goods and services, do people take into account their tastes/preferences and income when choosing a combination of goods and services which gives the people the highest utility? Do people’s preferences and tastes change in situations where there are very few choices? Or do they develop an acquired taste/preference because of limitations posed by societal inequities?