It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Early in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, before the routine availability and/or use of personal protective equipment, health care workers were understandably concerned. Our aim was to explore health care workers’ attitudes toward patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 at the time of the nation’s first surge in 2 highly affected hospitals in New York.
Methods
We performed a cross-sectional, self-administered survey study of health care workers. The survey consisted of 17 multiple-choice questions including demographic information, ethics, and willingness to care for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Subgroup analyses were performed using the Fisher exact test.
Results
Of 340 health care workers approached, 338 (99.4%) consented to the survey; 163 (48.7%) were registered nurses and 160 (48.3%) lived with children. While 326 (97.3%) workers were concerned about putting their family/coworkers at risk of infection after caring for a patient with SARS-CoV-2, only 30 (8.9%) were unwilling to treat a patient with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Registered nurses were more likely than other health care workers to think it was ethical to refuse care for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, worried more often about contracting infection, and felt that SARS-CoV-2 added to their stress level (P = .009, P = .018, P < .001, respectively). A similar contrast was seen when comparing workers who live with children with those who did not.
Conclusions
Levels of stress and concern were extremely high. In spite of that, the overwhelming majority of workers were willing to treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Registered nurses and health care workers who live with children were more likely to think it is ethical to refuse care for SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
2 Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
4 Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA; School of Public Health at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, New York, USA