Dataset Information

A retrospective evaluation of three ethical triage tools for the allocation of ICU resources during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To retrospectively evaluate the effect of ethical triage tools (ETT), designed to streamline the admission of patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to determine the characteristics and outcomes of the patients who would have been denied admission to the ICU according to these protocols, including the cumulative number of saved ICU days.

Methods

We retrospectively identified the ethical triage status in every patient who was admitted to our 31-bed mixed ICU in Antwerp, Belgium during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of the reason for admission. This study was possible since the capacity of our ICU had not been threatened, still enabling our usual case-per-case decision. We evaluated three different ETTs that were designed in our and two other hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

During the 81-day study period, 182 patients were admitted to the ICU. Of the patients, 9-23% would have been denied ICU admission according to the three assessed ETTs (WBD cohort), responsible for 8-18% (n = 116-257) of the total number of ICU days. Of the WBD patients, 44-55% eventually survived their hospital stay, compared to 71-74% of the patients that would have been allowed admission. Of the WBD patients admitted for respiratory failure due to COVID-19, 18-25% survived, a number that decreased to 0-20% when these patients required mechanical ventilation.

Conclusion

An ETT effectively reduces ICU bed occupancy but it does not accurately discriminate between survivors and non-survivors, as a substantial percentage of patients who are being denied admission to the ICU would eventually survive their hospital stay.

SUBMITTER: Michielsen H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8501390 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the associated hospitalization of an overwhelming number of ventilator-dependent patients, medical and/or ethical patient triage paradigms have become essential. While guidelines on the allocation of scarce resources do exist, such work within the subdisciplines of intensive care (e.g., neurocritical care) remains limited. Methods: A 16-item questionnaire was developed that sought to explore/quantify the expert opinions of German neurointensivists with regard to triage decisions. The anonymous survey was conducted via a web-based platform and in total, 96 members of the Initiative of German Neurointensive Trial Engagement (IGNITE)-study group were contacted via e-mail. The IGNITE consortium consists of an interdisciplinary panel of specialists with expertise in neuro-critical care (i.e., anesthetists, neurologists and neurosurgeons). Results: Fifty members of the IGNITE consortium responded to the questionnaire; in total the respondents were in charge of more than 500 Neuro ICU beds throughout Germany. Common determinants reported which affected triage decisions included known patient wishes (98%), the state of health before admission (96%), SOFA-score (85%) and patient age (69%). Interestingly, other principles of allocation, such as a treatment of "youngest first" (61%) and members of the healthcare sector (50%) were also noted. While these were the most accepted parameters affecting the triage of patients, a "first-come, first-served" principle appeared to be more accepted than a lottery for the allocation of ICU beds which contradicts much of what has been reported within the literature. The respondents also felt that at least one neurointensivist should serve on any interdisciplinary triage team. Conclusions: The data gathered in the context of this survey reveal the estimation/perception of triage algorithms among neurointensive care specialists facing COVID-19. Further, it is apparent that German neurointensivists strongly feel that they should be involved in any triage decisions at an institutional level given the unique resources needed to treat patients within the Neuro ICU.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus 2019 pandemic placed unprecedented pressures on healthcare services and magnified ethical dilemmas related to how resources should be allocated. These resources include, among others, personal protective equipment, personnel, life-saving equipment, and vaccines. Decision-makers have therefore sought ethical decision-making tools so that resources are distributed both swiftly and equitably. To support the development of such a decision-making tool, a systematic review of the literature on relevant ethical values and principles was undertaken. The aim of this review was to identify ethical values and principles in the literature which relate to the equitable allocation of resources in response to an acute public health threat, such as a pandemic.MethodsA rapid systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LitCOVID and relevant reference lists. The time period of the search was January 2000 to 6th April 2020, and the search was restricted to human studies. January 2000 was selected as a start date as the aim was to capture ethical values and principles within acute public health threat situations. No restrictions were made with regard to language. Ethical values and principles were extracted and examined thematically.ResultsA total of 1,618 articles were identified. After screening and application of eligibility criteria, 169 papers were included in the thematic synthesis. The most commonly mentioned ethical values and principles were: Equity, reciprocity, transparency, justice, duty to care, liberty, utility, stewardship, trust and proportionality. In some cases, ethical principles were conflicting, for example, Protection of the Public from Harm and Liberty.ConclusionsAllocation of resources in response to acute public health threats is challenging and must be simultaneously guided by many ethical principles and values. Ethical decision-making strategies and the prioritisation of different principles and values needs to be discussed with the public in order to prepare for future public health threats. An evidence-based tool to guide decision-makers in making difficult decisions is required. The equitable allocation of resources in response to an acute public health threat is challenging, and many ethical principles may be applied simultaneously. An evidence-based tool to support difficult decisions would be helpful to guide decision-makers.

Project description:BackgroundECMO is a particularly scarce resource during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its allocation involves ethical considerations that may be different to usual times. There is limited pre-pandemic literature on the ethical factors that ECMO physicians consider during ECMO allocation. During the pandemic, there has been relatively little professional guidance specifically relating to ethics and ECMO allocation; although there has been active ethical debate about allocation of other critical care resources. We report the results of a small international exploratory survey of ECMO clinicians' views on different patient factors in ECMO decision-making prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then outline current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for rationing life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and examine the extent to which current guidelines for ECMO allocation (and reported practice) adhere to these ethical guidelines and recommendations.MethodsAn online survey was performed with responses recorded between mid May and mid August 2020. Participants (n = 48) were sourced from the ECMOCard study group-an international group of experts (n = 120) taking part in a prospective international study of ECMO and intensive care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey compared the extent to which certain ethical factors involved in ECMO resource allocation were considered prior to and during the pandemic.ResultsWhen initiating ECMO during the pandemic, compared to usual times, participants reported giving more ethical weight to the benefit of ECMO to other patients not yet admitted as opposed to those already receiving ECMO, (p < 0.001). If a full unit were referred a good candidate for ECMO, participants were more likely during the pandemic to consider discontinuing ECMO from a current patient with low chance of survival (53% during pandemic vs. 33% prior p = 0.002). If the clinical team recommends that ECMO should cease, but family do not agree, the majority of participants indicated that they would continue treatment, both in usual circumstances (67%) and during the pandemic (56%).ConclusionsWe found differences during the COVID-19 pandemic in prioritisation of several ethical factors in the context of ECMO allocation. The ethical principles prioritised by survey participants were largely consistent with ECMO allocation guidelines, current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for allocation of life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, many patient-facing digital self-triage tools were designed and deployed to alleviate the demand for pandemic virus triage in hospitals and physicians' offices by providing a way for people to self-assess their health status and get advice on whether to seek care. These tools, provided via websites, apps, or patient portals, allow people to answer questions, for example, about symptoms and contact history, and receive guidance on appropriate care, which might be self-care.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to explore the state of literature on digital self-triage tools that direct or advise care for adults during a pandemic and to explore what has been learned about the intended purpose, use, and quality of guidance; tool usability; impact on providers; and ability to forecast health outcomes or care demand.MethodsA literature search was conducted in July 2021 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. A total of 1311 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 researchers using Covidence, and of these, 83 (6.76%) articles were reviewed via full-text screening. In total, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria; they allowed adults to self-assess for pandemic virus, and the adults were directed to care. Using Microsoft Excel, we extracted and charted the following data: authors, publication year and country, country the tool was used in, whether the tool was integrated into a health care system, number of users, research question and purpose, direction of care provided, and key findings.ResultsAll but 2 studies reported on tools developed since early 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies reported on tools that were developed in 17 countries. The direction of care advice included directing to an emergency room, seeking urgent care, contacting or seeing a physician, being tested, or staying at home and self-isolating. Only 2 studies evaluated tool usability. No study demonstrated that the tools reduce demand on the health care system, although at least one study suggested that data can predict demand for care and that data allow monitoring public health.ConclusionsAlthough self-triage tools developed and used around the world have similarities in directing to care (emergency room, physician, and self-care), they differ in important ways. Some collect data to predict health care demand. Some are intended for use when concerned about health status; others are intended to be used repeatedly by users to monitor public health. The quality of triage may vary. The high use of such tools during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that research is needed to assess and ensure the quality of advice given by self-triage tools and to assess intended or unintended consequences on public health and health care systems.

Project description:Objective. When medical resources are scarce, clinicians must make difficult triage decisions. When these decisions affect public trust and morale, as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts will benefit from knowing which triage metrics have citizen support. Design. We conducted an online survey in 20 countries, comparing support for 5 common metrics (prognosis, age, quality of life, past and future contribution as a health care worker) to a benchmark consisting of support for 2 no-triage mechanisms (first-come-first-served and random allocation). Results. We surveyed nationally representative samples of 1000 citizens in each of Brazil, France, Japan, and the United States and also self-selected samples from 20 countries (total N = 7599) obtained through a citizen science website (the Moral Machine). We computed the support for each metric by comparing its usability to the usability of the 2 no-triage mechanisms. We further analyzed the polarizing nature of each metric by considering its usability among participants who had a preference for no triage. In all countries, preferences were polarized, with the 2 largest groups preferring either no triage or extensive triage using all metrics. Prognosis was the least controversial metric. There was little support for giving priority to healthcare workers. Conclusions. It will be difficult to define triage guidelines that elicit public trust and approval. Given the importance of prognosis in triage protocols, it is reassuring that it is the least controversial metric. Experts will need to prepare strong arguments for other metrics if they wish to preserve public trust and morale during health crises. Highlights We collected citizen preferences regarding triage decisions about scarce medical resources from 20 countries. We find that citizen preferences are universally polarized. Citizens either prefer no triage (random allocation or first-come-first served) or extensive triage using all common triage metrics, with “prognosis” being the least controversial. Experts will need to prepare strong arguments to preserve or elicit public trust in triage decisions.