gms | German Medical Science

Background/research question: Allocation of resources towards the treatment of patients with Sars-CoV-2 may affect the quality of care of cancer patients. Medical societies have issued statements on priority setting in cancer care in the wake of the Sars-CoV-2 outbreak [1]. However, there is a lack of empirical data on how resources are prioritized and which criteria these decisions are mainly based on by those involved in decision making.

Methods: Semi-structured, problem-centered interviews were conducted with oncologists in Germany from clinical as well as ambulatory setting between February and July 2021. Sampling was convenience sampling. Interviewees were recruited in cooperation with AIO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft internistische Onkologie) via Email distribution as well as direct approach. Transcripts were analysed by two researchers with professional background in medical ethics and medicine following the principles of hermeneutic-based structured qualitative content analysis by Kuckartz [2] using the software MaxQDA. Results were discussed within the interdisciplinary research team.

Results: 15 oncologists participated in the study. Interviews lasted between 17 and 88 minutes. According to preliminary analysis three main topics emerge: 1. Experiences with scarcity regarding specific diagnostic procedures and treatment 2. Effects of priority setting on coping and psycho-social support for patients and relatives 3. Criteria for priority setting and decisions on deviations of standards of care. Reported criteria could be further distinguished into three subcategories: a) criteria related to health condition of the patient (e.g. diagnosis, urgency of the procedure), b) pandemic related organizational issues (e.g. hygiene requirements), c) systemic aspects not related to the pandemic (e.g. priorisation of well-paid interventions).

Conclusion: Our data indicate that pandemic related organizational issues influenced priority setting, which needs to be addressed. Furthermore, interviewees agree in posteriorising palliative and follow up care, which needs to be discussed regarding possible negative side effects. Data will be interpreted focussing on the possible contribution to an empirically and normatively informed guidance for priority setting regarding cancer care in times of pandemics and beyond.

Competing interests: Prof. Anke Reinacher Schick:

Honorare für Vorträge: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, BMS, Celgene, iomedico, Lilly, Merck Serono, MCI Global, MSD, Pfizer, promedicis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier

Honorare als Expertin/Beraterin: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxalta, BMS, Celgene, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Servier,

Reisekosten: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Ipsen, MCI Global, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier

Studien (Institution): Roche, Ipsen

Finanzierung wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen (Studien und Forschung) (Institution): Amgen, Alexion, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Ipsen, Lilly, Roche, Servier, AIO Studien gGmbH, Agricola, Rafael-Pharmaceutics, Erytech, BioNTech