The sudden onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was accompanied by a myriad of ethical issues that prompted the issuing of various ethical guidance documents for health care professionals in clinical, research, and public health settings throughout the United Kingdom (UK) of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The aim of this review was to identify the main principles in ethical guidance documents published in the UK and Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This review used a qualitative review methodology with thematic synthesis to analyze the included ethics-related guidance documents, as defined in this review, published in the UK and Ireland from March 2020 through March 2022. The search included a general search in Google Scholar and a targeted search on the websites of the relevant professional bodies and public health authorities in the two countries. The ethical principles in these documents were analyzed using the constant comparative method (CCM).

Forty-four guidance documents met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten main ethical principles were identified, namely: fairness, honesty, minimizing harm, proportionality, responsibility, autonomy, respect, informed decision making, duty of care, and reciprocity.

The guidelines did not present the ethical principles in equal detail. Some principles lacked definitions, leaving them vulnerable to misinterpretation by the documents’ end users. Priority was frequently given to collectivist ethics over individualistic approaches. Further clarity is required in future ethical guidance documents to better guide health care professionals in similar situations.

The purpose of this study was to assess, through participant self-assessment, the effectiveness of a rapid response team curriculum based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Ebola Virus Disease Consolidated Preparedness Checklist, Revision 1.

A pre-and-post survey for the purpose of process improvement assessment involving 44 individuals was conducted in Angola. The survey was conducted before and after a 6-day training workshop held in Luanda, Angola, in December 2017. A paired t-test was used to identify any significant change on six 7-point Likert scale questions with α <.05 (95% CI).

Two of the 6 questions, “I feel confident the team can effectively work together to accomplish its assigned goals and objectives during a suspected contagious hemorrhagic fever disease outbreak” and “I understand basic pandemic response concepts” changed significantly from the presurvey to the postsurvey. The 4 remaining questions had near statistical significant change or an upward trend.

This Angolan rapid response team training curriculum based on WHO guidelines, After Action Reports, and internationally accepted standard operating procedures provides the nation of Angola with the confidence to rapidly respond at the national level to a highly infectious contagion in the region. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:577-581)