Dataset Information

Identifying ethical values for guiding triage decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian ethical committee perspective using Delphi methodology.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to identify the guiding ethical principles that should be considered for critical resource allocation during pandemic emergency situations, and especially for the COVID-19 outbreak. The secondary objective was to define the priority to be assigned to each principle.

Setting

The study was conducted from March to June 2020 within the context of an ethical committee (EC) in Northern Italy.

Participants

Eleven EC members and five additional external healthcare and bioethical professionals, forming a multidisciplinary panel, took part in the study.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The compilation of a list of ethical principles (maximum of 10 items) and their priority ranking and application within an emergency pandemic context was established as the expected outcome of this work.

Results

A consensus on 10 guiding ethical principles was reached by the multidisciplinary panel. Transparency ranked first on the priority list as the most frequently voted principle, followed by the number of lives saved, life-years saved, respect for individuals' autonomy and equity. Other principles including life cycle, 'sickest first', reciprocity, instrumental value and lottery were also considered appropriate as potential tiebreakers. These principles were discussed and made consistent with the current Italian pandemic context by producing an explanatory document.

Conclusions

The identified principles could be used in preparedness plans to guide resource allocation during pandemic events. By combining their rank and relevance in relation to disease, health system organisations, social and economic settings, and critical resources at risk of scarcity, these principles could help to maximise the benefit of resource use for the community, thus reducing inequalities for individuals.

SUBMITTER: Zeneli A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130741 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, with the COVID-19 pandemic, dental services were limited to emergency/ urgent conditions and were provided only after tele-triage referral for face-to-face management. However, no previous research explored whether the pain severity (PS) drives the tele-triage decisions. The current study examined the association between PS and tele-triage decision of whether to manage the condition remotely or refer the caller for face-to-face management.MethodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the PS reported by hotline callers, using numerical rating scale (NRS-11), during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdown (23 March-31 August 2020) and its association with tele-triage decision controlling for age, sex, history of chronic illness, and dental discipline needed. Binomial logistic regression assessed the association between the PS (exposure) and tele-triage decision (outcome). ANOVA compared PS across tele-triage categories, dental history and tentative diagnosis.ResultsPS was significantly associated with tele-triage decisions (p < 0.05). An increase in pain score by 1 unit was associated with 1.4 times increased odds of face-face referral (95% CI: 1.26-1.54). Pediatric/ adolescent patients (9-18 years) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.07-4.02), history of chronic illness (OR = 2.12; 95% CI:1.28-3.51), need for surgical specialty (OR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.22-3.04) and orthodontic specialty (OR = 7.02; 95% CI: 3.54-13.87) were independently associated with tele-triage decision. PS was highest for the emergency triage category (8.00 ± 2.83, P < 0.0001), dental history of tooth with cavity or filling (6.65 ± 2.024, P < 0.0001), and the tentative tele-diagnosis of cellulitis (7.75 ± 2.872, P < 0.0001).ConclusionsDuring COVID-19 pandemic, tele-triage decisions were significantly influenced by patient-reported PS, adjusting for a range of variables. Despite this, referral for face-to-face management was individualized and driven by the tripartite considerations of the reported pain, clinical judgement, and the high transmission characteristics of COVID-19.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings. METHODS:The study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants. RESULTS:Review of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy. 71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents. CONCLUSION:To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.

Project description:IntroductionIntensive care is generally regarded as expensive, and as a result beds are limited. This has raised serious questions about rationing when there are insufficient beds for all those referred. However, the evidence for the cost effectiveness of intensive care is weak and the work that does exist usually assumes that those who are not admitted do not survive, which is not always the case. Randomised studies of the effectiveness of intensive care are difficult to justify on ethical grounds; therefore, this observational study examined the cost effectiveness of ICU admission by comparing patients who were accepted into ICU after ICU triage to those who were not accepted, while attempting to adjust such comparison for confounding factors.MethodsThis multi-centre observational cohort study involved 11 hospitals in 7 EU countries and was designed to assess the cost effectiveness of admission to intensive care after ICU triage. A total of 7,659 consecutive patients referred to the intensive care unit (ICU) were divided into those accepted for admission and those not accepted. The two groups were compared in terms of cost and mortality using multilevel regression models to account for differences across centres, and after adjusting for age, Karnofsky score and indication for ICU admission. The analyses were also stratified by categories of Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II predicted mortality (< 5%, 5% to 40% and >40%). Cost effectiveness was evaluated as cost per life saved and cost per life-year saved.ResultsAdmission to ICU produced a relative reduction in mortality risk, expressed as odds ratio, of 0.70 (0.52 to 0.94) at 28 days. When stratified by predicted mortality, the odds ratio was 1.49 (0.79 to 2.81), 0.7 (0.51 to 0.97) and 0.55 (0.37 to 0.83) for <5%, 5% to 40% and >40% predicted mortality, respectively. Average cost per life saved for all patients was $103,771 (€82,358) and cost per life-year saved was $7,065 (€5,607). These figures decreased substantially for patients with predicted mortality higher than 40%, $60,046 (€47,656) and $4,088 (€3,244), respectively. Results were very similar when considering three-month mortality. Sensitivity analyses performed to assess the robustness of the results provided findings similar to the main analyses.ConclusionsNot only does ICU appear to produce an improvement in survival, but the cost per life saved falls for patients with greater severity of illness. This suggests that intensive care is similarly cost effective to other therapies that are generally regarded as essential.