Pandemic Dementia Scarce Resource Allocation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith EE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458602 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pandemic Dementia Scarce Resource Allocation.
Smith Eric E EE Couillard Philippe P Fisk John D JD Ismail Zahinoor Z Montero-Odasso Manuel M Robillard Julie M JM Vedel Isabelle I Sivananthan Saskia S Gauthier Serge S
Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ 20200901 3
Hospitals and intensive care units are straining to provide care for a large surge of patients with coronavirus disease 19 (Covid-19). Contingency plans are being made for the possibility that resources for lifesaving care, including mechanical ventilators, will be in short supply. Covid-19 is more severe and more likely to be fatal in older persons. Dementia is one of the commonest severe comorbidities of aging. Persons with dementia are vulnerable and often need the support of others to make t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium-with diverse expertise and representation-representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens' values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource's varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.
| S-EPMC7521357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveA deep understanding of the relationship between a scarce drug's dose and clinical response is necessary to appropriately distribute a supply-constrained drug along these lines.Summary of key dataThe vast majority of drug development and repurposing during the COVID-19 pandemic - an event that has made clear the ever-present scarcity in healthcare systems -has been ignorant of scarcity and dose optimisation's ability to help address it.ConclusionsFuture pandemic clinical trials systems should obtain dose optimisation data, as these appear necessary to enable appropriate scarce resource allocation according to societal values.
| S-EPMC9562718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care institutions worldwide to develop plans for allocation of scarce resources in crisis capacity settings. These plans frequently rely on rapid deployment of institutional triage teams that would be responsible for prioritizing patients to receive scarce resources; however, little is known about how these teams function or how to support team members participating in this unique task.ObjectiveTo identify themes illuminating triage team members' perspectives and experiences pertaining to the triage process.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study was conducted using inductive thematic analysis of observations of Washington state triage team simulations and semistructured interviews with participants during the COVID-19 pandemic from December 2020 to February 2021. Participants included clinician and ethicist triage team members. Data were analyzed from December 2020 through November 2021.Main outcomes and measuresEmergent themes describing the triage process and experience of triage team members.ResultsAmong 41 triage team members (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [11.4] years; 21 [51.2%] women) who participated in 12 simulations and 21 follow-up interviews, there were 5 Asian individuals (12.2%) and 35 White individuals (85.4%); most participants worked in urban hospital settings (32 individuals [78.0%]). Three interrelated themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) understanding the broader approach to resource allocation: participants strove to understand operational and ethical foundations of the triage process, which was necessary to appreciate their team's specific role; (2) contending with uncertainty: team members could find it difficult or feel irresponsible making consequential decisions based on limited clinical and contextual patient information, and they grappled with ethically ambiguous features of individual cases and of the triage process as a whole; and (3) transforming mindset: participants struggled to disentangle narrow determinations about patients' likelihood of survival to discharge from implicit biases and other ethically relevant factors, such as quality of life. They cited the team's open deliberative process, as well as practice and personal experience with triage as important in helping to reshape their usual cognitive approach to align with this unique task.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that there were challenges in adapting clinical intuition and training to a distinctive role in the process of scarce resource allocation. These findings suggest that clinical experience, education in ethical and operational foundations of triage, and experiential training, such as triage simulations, may help prepare clinicians for this difficult role.
| S-EPMC9016492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIn pandemics like COVID-19, the need for medical resources quickly outpaces available supply. policymakers need strategies to inform decisions about allocating scarce resources.Study design and settingWe updated a systematic review on evidence-based approaches and searched databases through May 2020 for evaluation of strategies for policymakers.ResultsThe 201 identified studies evaluated reducing demand for healthcare, optimizing existing resources, augmenting resources, and adopting crisis standards of care. Most research exists to reduce demand (n = 149); 39 higher quality studies reported benefits of contact tracing, school closures, travel restrictions, and mass vaccination. Of 28 strategies to augment resources, 6 higher quality studies reported effectiveness of establishing temporary facilities, use of volunteers, and decision support software. Of 23 strategies to optimize existing resources, 12 higher quality studies reported successful scope of work expansions and building on existing interagency agreements. Of 15 COVID-19 studies, 5 higher quality studies reported on combinations of policies and benefits of community-wide mask policies.ConclusionDespite the volume, the evidence base is limited; few strategies were empirically tested in robust study designs. The review provides a comprehensive overview of the effects of strategies to allocate resources and provides critical appraisal to identify the best available evidence.
| S-EPMC8642033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this thematic review is to examine the literature on the publics' preferences of scarce medical resource allocation during COVID-19.Study designLiterature review.MethodsA review of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus was performed between December 2019 and June 2022 for eligible articles.ResultsFifteen studies using three methodologies and spanning five continents were included. Five key themes were identified: (1) prioritise the youngest; (2) save the most lives; (3) egalitarian allocation approaches; (4) prioritise healthcare workers; and (5) bias against particular groups. The public gave high priority to allocation that saved the most lives, particularly to patients who are younger and healthcare workers. Themes present but not supported as broadly were giving priority to individuals with disabilities, high frailty or those with behaviours that may have contributed to their ill-health (e.g. smokers). Allocation involving egalitarian approaches received the least support among community members.ConclusionThe general public prefer rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic based on saving the most lives and giving priority to the youngest and frontline healthcare workers rather than giving preference to patients with disabilities, frailty or perceived behaviours that may have contributed to their own ill-health. There is also little public support for allocation based on egalitarian strategies.
| S-EPMC9212404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhenever vaccines for a new pandemic or widespread epidemic are developed, demand greatly exceeds the available supply of vaccine doses in the crucial, initial phases of vaccination. Rationing protocols must then fulfill a number of ethical principles balancing equal treatment of individuals and prioritization of at-risk and instrumental subpopulations. For COVID-19, actual rationing methods used a territory-based first allocation stage based on proportionality to population size, followed by locally-implemented prioritization rules. The results of this procedure have been argued to be ethically problematic.MethodsWe use a formal-analytical approach arising from the mathematical social sciences which allows to investigate whether any allocation methods (known or unknown) fulfill a combination of (ethical) desiderata and, if so, how they are formulated algorithmically.ResultsStrikingly, we find that there exists one and only one method that allows to treat people equally while giving priority to those who are worse off. We identify this method down to the algorithmic level and show that it is easily implementable and it exhibits additional, desirable properties. In contrast, we show that the procedures used during the COVID-19 pandemic violate both principles.ConclusionsOur research delivers an actual algorithm that is readily applicable and improves upon previous ones. Since our axiomatic approach shows that any other algorithm would either fail to treat people equally or fail to prioritize those who are worse off, we conclude that ethical principles dictate the adoption of this algorithm as a standard for the COVID-19 or any other comparable vaccination campaigns.
| S-EPMC9792380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Plans for allocating scarce healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic commonly involve the activation of institutional triage teams. These teams would be responsible for selecting patients who are most likely to survive to be prioritized to receive scarce resources. However, there is little empirical support for this approach.DesignHigh-fidelity triage-team simulation study.SettingHealthcare institutions in Washington state.SubjectsTriage teams, consisting of at least two senior clinicians and a bioethicist.InterventionsParticipants reviewed a limited amount of deidentified information for a diverse sample of critically ill patients. Teams then assigned each patient to one of five prioritization categories defined by likelihood of survival to hospital discharge. The process was refined based on observation and participant feedback after which a second phase of simulations was conducted.Measurements and main resultsFeasibility was assessed by the time required for teams to perform their task. Prognostic accuracy was assessed by comparing teams' prediction about likelihood of survival to hospital discharge with real-world discharge outcomes. Agreement between the teams on prognostic categorization was evaluated using kappa statistics. Eleven triage team simulations (eight in phase 1 and three in phase 2) were conducted from December 2020 to February 2021. Overall, teams reviewed a median of 23 patient cases in each session (interquartile range [IQR], 17-29) and spent a median of 102 seconds (IQR, 50-268) per case. The concordance between expected survival and real-world survival to discharge was 71% (IQR, 64-76%). The overall agreement between teams for placement of patients into prognostic categories was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.53).ConclusionsThese findings support the potential feasibility, accuracy, and effectiveness of institutional triage teams informed by a limited set of patient information items as part of a strategy for allocating scarce resources in healthcare emergencies. Additional work is needed to refine the process and adapt it to local contexts.
| S-EPMC8785932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStark gaps exist between projected health needs in a pandemic situation and the current capacity of health care and medical countermeasure systems. Existing pandemic ethics discussions have advocated to engage the public in scarcity dilemmas and attend the local contexts and cultural perspectives that shape responses to a global health threat. This public engagement study thus considers the role of community and culture in the ethical apportionment of scarce health resources, specifically ventilators, during an influenza pandemic. It builds upon a previous exploration of the values and preferences of Maryland residents regarding how a finite supply of mechanical ventilators ought to be allocated during a severe global outbreak of influenza. An important finding of this earlier research was that local history and place within the state engendered different ways of thinking about scarcity.ObjectiveGiven the intrastate variation in the themes expressed by Maryland participants, the project team sought to examine interstate differences by implementing the same protocol elsewhere to answer the following questions. Does variation in ethical frames of reference exist within different regions of the United States? What practical implications does evidence of sameness and difference possess for pandemic planners and policymakers at local and national levels?MethodsResearch using the same deliberative democracy process from the Maryland study was conducted in Central Texas in March 2018 among 30 diverse participants, half of whom identified as Hispanic or Latino. Deliberative democracy provides a moderated process through which community members can learn facts about a public policy matter from experts and explore their own and others' views.ResultsParticipants proposed that by evenly distributing supplies of ventilators and applying clear eligibility criteria consistently, health authorities could enable fair allocation of scarce lifesaving equipment. The strong identification, attachment, and obligation of persons toward their nuclear and extended families emerged as a distinctive regional and ethnic core value that has practical implications for the substance, administration, and communication of allocation frameworks.ConclusionsMaryland and Central Texas residents expressed a common, overriding concern about the fairness of allocation decisions. Central Texas deliberants, however, more readily expounded upon family as a central consideration. In Central Texas, family is a principal, culturally inflected lens through which life and death matters are often viewed. Conveners of other pandemic-related public engagement exercises in the United States have advocated the benefits of transparency and inclusivity in developing an ethical allocation framework; this study demonstrates cultural competence as a further advantage.
| S-EPMC7141421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate public preferences regarding allocation principles for scarce medical resources in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in comparison with the recommendations of ethicists.MethodsAn online survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1509 adults residing in Korea, from November 2 to 5, 2020. The degree of agreement with resource allocation principles in the context of the medical resource constraints precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic was examined. The results were then compared with ethicists' recommendations. We also examined whether the perceived severity of COVID-19 explained differences in individual preferences, and by doing so, whether perceived severity helps explain discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists' recommendations.ResultsOverall, the public of Korea agreed strongly with the principles of "save the most lives," "Koreans first," and "sickest first," but less with "random selection," in contrast to the recommendations of ethicists. "Save the most lives" was given the highest priority by both the public and ethicists. Higher perceived severity of the pandemic was associated with a greater likelihood of agreeing with allocation principles based on utilitarianism, as well as those promoting and rewarding social usefulness, in line with the opinions of expert ethicists.ConclusionsThe general public of Korea preferred rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic predominantly based on utilitarianism, identity and prioritarianism, rather than egalitarianism. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists' recommendations.
| S-EPMC8517370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Health systems in many different countries have increasingly been reorienting the delivery of dementia care to home and community care settings. This paper provides information on how health and social care professionals (HSCPs) in Ireland make decisions on resource allocation for people with dementia living at home and how resource constraints affect their decisions and choices. Methods: A balance of care approach was used to assess resource allocation across six dementia case types, from low to high needs. Workshops were held with 24 HSCPs from multiple disciplines. Participants allocated services in two scenarios: allocation with and without a budget constraint. Nominal group technique was used to structure discussions around resource allocation in both scenarios. Thematic analysis was applied to analyse the qualitative data using a general inductive approach. Results: The following themes influenced allocative deliberations: whose needs are being met; what needs are identified; decision making context; decision making process; and allocation outcomes. Participants were proficient in making decisions, using 'decision rules' or heuristics to help them make decisions under fixed budget rules and sticking to conventional provision when constraints were in place. Conclusions: Freedom from a budget constraint allowed HSCPs to consider a broader range of services and to take a more expansive view on what needs should be considered, with a particular emphasis on adopting a proactive, preventative approach to the allocation of resources. The effect of the budget constraint overall was to narrow all considerations, using heuristics to limit the type of needs addressed and the range of services and supports provided. The consequences were a largely reactive, less personalised system of care. The findings emphasise the need for an integrated and comprehensive assessment process that is more concerned with individualised responses rather than relying on existing models of care alone.
| S-EPMC7808053 | biostudies-literature