Rédiger un PREreview

Background: During the Covid-19 event, Ontario hospitals implemented healthcare worker vaccination policies under Directive #6, a provincial framework that formally permitted multiple compliance pathways, including mandatory vaccination. Despite this formal flexibility, institutional responses converged. This study examines how vaccination mandates were implemented and justified across institutional, legal, and media domains, with particular attention to the operation of discretion within a decentralized governance framework. Methods: An environmental scan was conducted using document analysis of publicly available materials from a purposive sample of Ontario hospitals. Sources included hospital policy documents, institutional communications, court decisions, and media coverage. Materials were analyzed to identify patterns of mandate implementation, justification, and representation across domains. The term “Covid-19 event” is used as a neutral temporal descriptor that does not presuppose epidemiological classification. The study emphasizes descriptive mapping of institutional responses rather than causal inference. Results: Across the documentary corpus, vaccination was consistently framed as a baseline condition of healthcare employment, while alternatives permitted under provincial policy were rarely presented as durable or equivalent options. Hospitals adopted highly similar implementation models despite formal discretion. Legal decisions generally treated mandates as matters of institutional or employer authority, emphasizing jurisdictional and procedural considerations while limiting substantive review of scientific and proportionality claims central to the litigation. Media coverage largely mirrored institutional and legal framings, presenting vaccination as a settled professional expectation and employment exclusion as a routine administrative consequence. Taken together, these domains exhibited parallel patterns of normalization and policy alignment. Conclusions:This environmental scan documents convergence toward restrictive vaccination mandate implementation across institutional, legal, and media domains despite a formally flexible policy framework. By tracing how discretion was exercised and legitimated, the study provides an empirical account of how vaccination mandates stabilized as routine institutional practice. These findings establish a foundation for subsequent interpretive analysis of authority, dissent, and policy problem representation within governance frameworks during declared public health emergencies.