Variation in Ventilator Allocation Guidelines by US State During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

Web-based Dashboard on ECMO Utilization in Germany: An Interactive Visualization, Analyses, and Prediction Based on Real-life Data

In Germany, a comprehensive reimbursement policy for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) results in the highest per capita use worldwide, although benefits remain controversial. Public ECMO data is unstructured and poorly accessible to healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers. In addition, there are no uniform policies for ECMO allocation which confronts medical personnel with ethical considerations during health crises such as respiratory virus outbreaks.Retrospective information on adult and pediatric ECMO support performed in German hospitals was extracted from publicly available reimbursement data and hospital quality reports and processed to create the web-based ECMO Dashboard built on Open-Source software. Patient-level and hospital-level data were merged resulting in a solid base for ECMO use analysis and ECMO demand forecasting with high spatial granularity at the level of 413 county and city districts in Germany.The ECMO Dashboard ( https://www.ecmo-dash.de/ ), an innovative visual platform, presents the retrospective utilization patterns of ECMO support in Germany. It features interactive maps, comprehensive charts, and tables, providing insights at the hospital, district, and national levels. This tool also highlights the high prevalence of ECMO support in Germany and emphasizes districts with ECMO surplus - where patients from other regions are treated, or deficit - origins from which ECMO patients are transferred to other regions. The dashboard will evolve iteratively to provide stakeholders with vital information for informed and transparent resource allocation and decision-making.Accessible public routine data could support evidence-informed, forward-looking resource management policies, which are urgently needed to increase the quality and prepare the critical care infrastructure for future pandemics.

Against tiebreaking arguments in priority setting

Fair priority setting is based on morally sound criteria. Still, there will be cases when these criteria, our primary considerations, are tied and therefore do not help us in choosing one allocation over another. It is sometimes suggested that such cases can be handled by tiebreakers. In this paper, we discuss two versions of tiebreakers suggested in the literature. One version is to preserve fairness or impartiality by holding a lottery. The other version is to allow secondary considerations, considerations that are not part of our primary priority setting criteria, to be decisive. We argue that the argument for preserving impartiality by holding a lottery is sound, while the argument for using tiebreakers as secondary considerations is not. Finally, we argue that the instances where a tiebreaker seems necessary are precisely the situations where we have strong reasons for preferring a lottery. We conclude that factors that we consider valuable should all be included among the primary considerations, while ties should be settled by lotteries.

Behind the Scenes: Facilitators and Barriers to Developing State Scarce Resource Allocation Plans for the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

In response to COVID-19, many states revised, developed, or attempted to develop plans to allocate scarce critical care resources in the event that crisis standards of care were triggered. No prior analysis has assessed this plan development process, including whether plans were successfully adopted.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How did states develop or revise scarce resource allocation plans during the COVID-19 pandemic, and what were the barriers and facilitators to their development and adoption at the state level?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Plan authors and state leaders completed a semi-structured interview February to September 2022. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for themes related to plan development and adoption according to the principles of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Thirty-six participants from 34 states completed an interview, from states distributed across all US regions. Among participants' states with plans that existed prior to 2020 (n = 24), 17 were revised and adopted in response to COVID-19. Six states wrote a plan de novo, with the remaining states failing to develop or adopt a plan. Thirteen states continued to revise their plans in response to disability or aging bias complaints or to respond to evolving needs. Many participants expressed that urgency in the early days of the pandemic prevented an ideal development process. Facilitators of successful plan development and adoption include: coordination or support from the state department of health and existing relationships with key community partners, including aging and disability rights groups and minoritized communities. Barriers include lack of perceived political interest in a plan and development during a public health emergency.

INTERPRETATION

To avoid repeating mistakes from the early days of the COVID-19 response, states should develop or revise plans with community engagement and consider maintaining a standing committee with diverse membership and content expertise to periodically review plans and advise state officials on pandemic preparedness.

COVID-19 critical care triage across Canada: a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial triage protocols

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions of scarcity that led many provinces within Canada to develop triage protocols for critical care resources. In this study, we sought to undertake a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial pandemic triage protocols.

METHODS

We collected provincial triage protocols through personal correspondence with academic and political stakeholders between June and August 2020. Protocol data were extracted independently by two researchers and compared for accuracy and agreement. We separated data into three categories for comparative content analysis: protocol development, ethical framework, and protocol content. Our ethical analysis was informed by a procedural justice framework.

RESULTS

We obtained a total of eight provincial triage protocols. Protocols were similar in content, although age, physiologic scores, and functional status were variably incorporated. Most protocols were developed through a multidisciplinary, expert-driven, consensus process, and many were informed by influenza pandemic guidelines previously developed in Ontario. All protocols employed tiered morality-focused exclusion criteria to determine scarce resource allocation at the level of regional health care systems. None included a public engagement phase, although targeted consultation with public advocacy groups and relevant stakeholders was undertaken in select provinces. Most protocols were not publicly available in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Early provincial COVID-19 triage protocols were developed by dedicated expert committees under challenging circumstances. Nonetheless, few were publicly available, and public consultation was limited. No protocols were ever implemented, including during periods of extreme critical care surge. A national approach to pandemic triage that incorporates additional aspects of procedural justice should be considered in preparation for future pandemics.

Hospital Policy Variation in Addressing Decisions to Withhold and Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment

BACKGROUND

Sociodemographic disparities in physician decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment exist. Little is known about the content of hospital policies that guide physicians involved in these decisions.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the prevalence of US hospitals with policies that address withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment; how do these policies approach ethically controversial scenarios; and how do these policies address sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This national cross-sectional survey assessed the content of hospital policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. We distributed the survey electronically to American Society for Bioethics and Humanities members between July and August 2023 and descriptively analyzed responses.

RESULTS

Among 93 respondents from hospitals or hospital systems representing all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, 92% had policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Hospitals varied in their stated guidance, permitting life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn in cases of patient or surrogate request (82%), physiologic futility (81%), and potentially inappropriate treatment (64%). Of the 8% of hospitals with policies that addressed patient sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, these policies provided opposing recommendations to either exclude sociodemographic factors in decision-making or actively acknowledge and incorporate these factors in decision-making. Only 3% of hospitals had policies that recommended collecting and maintaining information about patients for whom life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn that could be used to identify disparities in decision-making.

INTERPRETATION

Although most surveyed US hospital policies addressed withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, these policies varied widely in criteria and processes. Surveyed policies also rarely addressed sociodemographic disparities in these decisions.

What are the views of Quebec and Ontario citizens on the tiebreaker criteria for prioritizing access to adult critical care in the extreme context of a COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND

The prioritization protocols for accessing adult critical care in the extreme pandemic context contain tiebreaker criteria to facilitate decision-making in the allocation of resources between patients with a similar survival prognosis. Besides being controversial, little is known about the public acceptability of these tiebreakers. In order to better understand the public opinion, Quebec and Ontario's protocols were presented to the public in a democratic deliberation during the summer of 2022.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To explore the perspectives of Quebec and Ontario citizens regarding tiebreakers, identifying the most acceptable ones and their underlying values. (2) To analyze these results considering other public consultations held during the pandemic on these criteria.

METHODS

This was an exploratory qualitative study. The design involved an online democratic deliberation that took place over two days, simultaneously in Quebec and Ontario. Public participants were selected from a community sample which excluded healthcare workers. Participants were first presented the essential components of prioritization protocols and their related issues (training session day 1). They subsequently deliberated on the acceptability of these criteria (deliberation session day 2). The deliberation was then subject to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 47 participants from the provinces of Quebec (n = 20) and Ontario (n = 27) took part in the online deliberation. A diverse audience participated excluding members of the healthcare workforce. Four themes were identified: (1) Priority to young patients - the life cycle - a preferred tiebreaker; (2) Randomization - a tiebreaker of last resort; (3) Multiplier effect of most exposed healthcare workers - a median acceptability tiebreaker, and (4) Social value - a less acceptable tiebreaker.

CONCLUSION

Life cycle was the preferred tiebreaker as this criterion respects intergenerational equity, which was considered relevant when allocating scarce resources to adult patients in a context of extreme pandemic. Priority to young patients is in line with other consultations conducted around the world. Additional studies are needed to further investigate the public acceptability of tiebreaker criteria.

Health Professional vs Layperson Values and Preferences on Scarce Resource Allocation

Importance

COVID-19 prompted rapid development of scarce resource allocation (SRA) policies to be implemented if demand eclipsed health systems' ability to provide critical care. While SRA policies follow general ethical frameworks, understanding priorities of those affected by policies and/or tasked with implementing them is critical.

Objective

To evaluate whether community members and health care profesionals (HCP) agree with SRA protocols at the University of California (UC).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study used social media and community-partnered engagement to recruit participants to a web-based survey open to all participants aged older than 18 years who wished to enroll. This study was fielded between May and September 2020 and queried participants' values and preferences on draft SRA policy tenets. Participants were also encouraged to forward the survey to their networks for snowball sampling. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to January 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Survey items assessed values and preferences, graded on Likert scales. Agreement was tabulated as difference in Likert points between expressed opinion and policy tenets. Descriptive statistics were tested for significance by HCP status. Free text responses were analyzed using applied rapid qualitative analysis.

Results

A total of 1545 participants aged older than 18 years (mean [SD] age 49 [16] years; 1149 female participants [74%], 478 health care practitioners [30%]) provided data on SRA values and preferences. Agreement with UC SRA policy as drafted was moderately high among respondents, ranging from 67% to 83% across domains. Higher agreement with the interim policy was observed for laypersons across all domains except health-related factors. HCPs agreed more strongly on average that resources should not be allocated to those less likely to survive (HCP mean, 3.70; 95% CI, 3.16-3.59; vs layperson mean, 3.38; 95% CI, 3.17-3.59; P = .002), and were more in favor of reallocating life support from patients less likely to those more likely to survive (HCP mean, 6.41; 95% CI, 6.15-6.67; vs layperson mean, 5.40; 95% CI, 5.23-5.58; P < .001). Transparency and trust building themes were common in free text responses and highly rated on scaled items.

Conclusions and Relevance

This survey of SRA policy values found moderate agreement with fundamental principles of such policies. Engagement with communities affected by SRA policy should continue in iterative refinement in preparation for future crises.

Simulation of New York City's Ventilator Allocation Guideline During the Spring 2020 COVID-19 Surge

Importance

The spring 2020 surge of COVID-19 unprecedentedly strained ventilator supply in New York City, with many hospitals nearly exhausting available ventilators and subsequently seriously considering enacting crisis standards of care and implementing New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (NYVAG). However, there is little evidence as to how NYVAG would perform if implemented.

Objectives

To evaluate the performance and potential improvement of NYVAG during a surge of patients with respect to the length of rationing, overall mortality, and worsening health disparities.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included intubated patients in a single health system in New York City from March through July 2020. A total of 20 000 simulations were conducted of ventilator triage (10 000 following NYVAG and 10 000 following a proposed improved NYVAG) during a crisis period, defined as the point at which the prepandemic ventilator supply was 95% utilized.

Exposures

The NYVAG protocol for triage ventilators.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Comparison of observed survival rates with simulations of scenarios requiring NYVAG ventilator rationing.

Results

The total cohort included 1671 patients; of these, 674 intubated patients (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [13.8] years; 465 male [69.9%]) were included in the crisis period, with 571 (84.7%) testing positive for COVID-19. Simulated ventilator rationing occurred for 163.9 patients over 15.0 days, 44.4% (95% CI, 38.3%-50.0%) of whom would have survived if provided a ventilator while only 34.8% (95% CI, 28.5%-40.0%) of those newly intubated patients receiving a reallocated ventilator survived. While triage categorization at the time of intubation exhibited partial prognostic differentiation, 94.8% of all ventilator rationing occurred after a time trial. Within this subset, 43.1% were intubated for 7 or more days with a favorable SOFA score that had not improved. An estimated 60.6% of these patients would have survived if sustained on a ventilator. Revising triage subcategorization, proposed improved NYVAG, would have improved this alarming ventilator allocation inefficiency (25.3% [95% CI, 22.1%-28.4%] of those selected for ventilator rationing would have survived if provided a ventilator). NYVAG ventilator rationing did not exacerbate existing health disparities.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of intubated patients experiencing simulated ventilator rationing during the apex of the New York City COVID-19 2020 surge, NYVAG diverted ventilators from patients with a higher chance of survival to those with a lower chance of survival. Future efforts should be focused on triage subcategorization, which improved this triage inefficiency, and ventilator rationing after a time trial, when most ventilator rationing occurred.

The Pandemic Allocation of Ventilators Model Penalizes Infants with Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia

During the COVID-19 pandemic, institutions developed ventilator allocation models. In one proposed model, neonates compete with adults for ventilators using a scoring system. Points are given for conditions that increase one- and five-year (y) mortality. For example, comparable points were added for adult conditions with mortality of 71.3% and for neonates with moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (mod/sBPD). We hypothesized that this model overestimates mortality in neonates with BPD and would penalize these infants unfairly. There was little information available on 1 y and 5 y mortality risk for mod/sBPD. To evaluate this allocation protocol, a retrospective chart review was performed on infants born ≥22 weeks and weighing <1500 g admitted to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in 2015 to identify babies with BPD. The main outcomes were 1 and 5 y mortality. In 2015, 28 infants were diagnosed with mod/s BPD based on NIH 2001 definition; 4 infants had modBPD and 24 had sBPD. All infants (100%) with modBPD survived to 5 y; 2 infants with sBPD died by 1 y (8%) and 22 survived (92%) to 1 y; 3 died (12.5%) by 5 y; and at least 13 survived (54%) to 5 y. Infants with mod/s BPD had lower-than-predicted 1 and 5 y mortality, suggesting the points assigned in the model are too high for these conditions. We believe this model would unfairly penalize these babies.

Triage Procedures for Critical Care Resource Allocation During Scarcity

Importance

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many US states issued or revised pandemic preparedness plans guiding allocation of critical care resources during crises. State plans vary in the factors used to triage patients and have faced criticism from advocacy groups due to the potential for discrimination.

Objective

To analyze the role of comorbidities and long-term prognosis in state triage procedures.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data gathered from parallel internet searches for state-endorsed pandemic preparedness plans for the 50 US states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to as states), which were conducted between November 25, 2021, and June 16, 2023. Plans available on June 16, 2023, that provided step-by-step instructions for triaging critically ill patients were categorized for use of comorbidities and prognostication.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence and contents of lists of comorbidities and their stated function in triage and instructions to predict duration of postdischarge survival.

Results

Overall, 32 state-promulgated pandemic preparedness plans included triage procedures specific enough to guide triage in clinical practice. Twenty of these (63%) included lists of comorbidities that excluded (11 of 20 [55%]) or deprioritized (8 of 20 [40%]) patients during triage; one state's list was formulated to resolve ties between patients with equal triage scores. Most states with triage procedures (21 of 32 [66%]) considered predicted survival beyond hospital discharge. These states proposed different prognostic time horizons; 15 of 21 (71%) were numeric (ranging from 6 months to 5 years after hospital discharge), with the remaining 6 (29%) using descriptive terms, such as long-term.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of state-promulgated critical care triage policies, most plans restricted access to scarce critical care resources for patients with listed comorbidities and/or for patients with less-than-average expected postdischarge survival. This analysis raises concerns about access to care during a public health crisis for populations with high burdens of chronic illness, such as individuals with disabilities and minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Toward future triage regulations: Investigating preferred allocation principles of the German public

BACKGROUND

When intensive care capacity is limited, triage may be required. Given that the German government started working on new triage legislation in 2022, the present study investigated the German public's preferences for intensive care allocation in two situations: ex-ante triage (where multiple patients compete for available resources) and ex-post triage (where admitting a new patient to intensive care means withdrawing treatment from another because ICU resources are depleted).

METHOD

In an online experiment, N=994 participants were presented with four fictitious patients who differed in age and pre- and post-treatment chance of survival. In a series of pairwise comparisons, participants were asked to select one patient for treatment or to opt for random selection. Ex-ante and ex-post triage situations were varied between participants and preferred allocation strategies were inferred from their decisions.

RESULTS

On average, participants prioritized better post-treatment prognosis ahead of younger age or treatment benefit. Many participants rejected random allocation (on the flip of a coin) or prioritization by worse pre-treatment prognosis. Preferences were similar for ex-ante and ex-post situations.

DISCUSSION

Although there may be good reasons for deviating from laypeople's preference for utilitarian allocation, the results can help to design future triage policies and accompanying communication strategies.

Experiences of US Clinicians Contending With Health Care Resource Scarcity During the COVID-19 Pandemic, December 2020 to December 2021

Importance

The second year of the COVID-19 pandemic saw periods of dire health care resource limitations in the US, sometimes prompting official declarations of crisis, but little is known about how these conditions were experienced by frontline clinicians.

Objective

To describe the experiences of US clinicians practicing under conditions of extreme resource limitation during the second year of the pandemic.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative inductive thematic analysis was based on interviews with physicians and nurses providing direct patient care at US health care institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were conducted between December 28, 2020, and December 9, 2021.

Exposure

Crisis conditions as reflected by official state declarations and/or media reports.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinicians' experiences as obtained through interviews.

Results

Interviews with 23 clinicians (21 physicians and 2 nurses) who were practicing in California, Idaho, Minnesota, or Texas were included. Of the 23 total participants, 21 responded to a background survey to assess participant demographics; among these individuals, the mean (SD) age was 49 (7.3) years, 12 (57.1%) were men, and 18 (85.7%) self-identified as White. Three themes emerged in qualitative analysis. The first theme describes isolation. Clinicians had a limited view on what was happening outside their immediate practice setting and perceived a disconnect between official messaging about crisis conditions and their own experience. In the absence of overarching system-level support, responsibility for making challenging decisions about how to adapt practices and allocate resources often fell to frontline clinicians. The second theme describes in-the-moment decision-making. Formal crisis declarations did little to guide how resources were allocated in clinical practice. Clinicians adapted practice by drawing on their clinical judgment but described feeling ill equipped to handle some of the operationally and ethically complex situations that fell to them. The third theme describes waning motivation. As the pandemic persisted, the strong sense of mission, duty, and purpose that had fueled extraordinary efforts earlier in the pandemic was eroded by unsatisfying clinical roles, misalignment between clinicians' own values and institutional goals, more distant relationships with patients, and moral distress.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this qualitative study suggest that institutional plans to protect frontline clinicians from the responsibility for allocating scarce resources may be unworkable, especially in a state of chronic crisis. Efforts are needed to directly integrate frontline clinicians into institutional emergency responses and support them in ways that reflect the complex and dynamic realities of health care resource limitation.

Rationing scarce healthcare capacity: A study of the ventilator allocation guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic

In the United States, even though national guidelines for allocating scarce healthcare resources are lacking, 26 states have specific ventilator allocation guidelines to be invoked in case of a shortage. While several states developed their guidelines in response to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, New York State developed these guidelines in 2015 as "pandemic influenza is a foreseeable threat, one that we cannot ignore." The primary objective of this study is to assess the existing procedures and priority rules in place for allocating/rationing scarce ventilator capacity and propose alternative (and improved) priority schemes. We first build machine learning models using inpatient records of COVID-19 patients admitted to New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and an affiliated community health center to predict survival probabilities as well as ventilator length-of-use. Then, we use the resulting point estimators and their uncertainties as inputs for a multiclass priority queueing model with abandonments to assess three priority schemes: (i) SOFA-P (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment based prioritization), which most closely mimics the existing practice by prioritizing patients with sufficiently low SOFA scores; (ii) ISP (incremental survival probability), which assigns priority based on patient-level survival predictions; and (iii) ISP-LU (incremental survival probability per length-of-use), which takes into account survival predictions and resource use duration. Our findings highlight that our proposed priority scheme, ISP-LU, achieves a demonstrable improvement over the other two alternatives. Specifically, the expected number of survivals increases and death risk while waiting for ventilator use decreases. We also show that ISP-LU is a robust priority scheme whose implementation yields a Pareto-improvement over both SOFA-P and ISP in terms of maximizing saved lives after mechanical ventilation while limiting racial disparity in access to the priority queue.

The lived experience of people with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter: Content analysis

Objective

People with disabilities (PWDs) are at greater risk of COVID-19 infection, complications, and death, and experience more difficulty accessing care. We analyzed Twitter tweets to identify important topics and investigate health policies' effects on PWDs.

Methods

Twitter's application programming interface was used to access its public COVID-19 stream. English-language tweets from January 2020 to January 2022 containing a combination of keywords related to COVID-19, disability, discrimination, and inequity were collected and refined to exclude duplicates, replies, and retweets. The remaining tweets were analyzed for user demographics, content, and long-term availability.

Results

The collection yielded 94,814 tweets from 43,296 accounts. During the observation period, 1068 (2.5%) accounts were suspended and 1088 (2.5%) accounts were deleted. Account suspension and deletion among verified users tweeting about COVID-19 and disability were 0.13% and 0.3%, respectively. Emotions were similar among active, suspended, and deleted users, with general negative and positive emotions most common followed by sadness, trust, anticipation, and anger. The overall average sentiment for the tweets was negative. Ten of the 12 topics identified (96.8%) related to pandemic effects on PWDs; "politics that rejects and leaves the disabled, elderly, and children behind" (48.3%) and "efforts to support PWDs in the COVID crisis" (31.8%) were most common. The sample of tweets by organizations (43.9%) was higher for this topic than for other COVID-19-related topics the authors have investigated.

Conclusions

The primary discussion addressed how pandemic politics and policies disadvantage PWDs, older adults, and children, and secondarily expressed support for these populations. The increased level of Twitter use by organizations suggests a higher level of organization and advocacy within the disability community than in other groups. Twitter may facilitate recognition of increased harm to or discrimination against specific populations such as people living with disability during national health events.

Public voices on tie-breaking criteria and underlying values in COVID-19 triage protocols to access critical care: a scoping review

Background

To reduce the arbitrariness in the allocation of rare resources in intensive care units (ICU) in the context of the pandemic, tiebreakers were considered in some COVID-19 triage algorithms. They were also contemplated to facilitate the tragic decisions of healthcare workers when faced with two patients with similar prognosis and only one ICU bed available. Little is known about the public's perspective on tiebreakers.

Objectives

To consolidate the available scientific literature on public consultations, particularly on tiebreakers and their underlying values. Also, to obtain an overview of the key arguments presented by the participating public and to identify potential gaps related to this topic.

Methods

The steps described by Arksey and O'Malley was the preferred method to our approach. Seven electronic databases were searched from January 2020 to April 2022, using keywords for each database: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EBM reviews, CINAHL complete. We also searched in Google and Google Scholar, and in the references of the articles found. Our analysis was mainly qualitative. A thematic analysis was performed to consider the public's perspectives on tiebreakers and their underlying values, according to these studies.

Results

Of 477 publications found, 20 were selected. They carried out public consultations through various methods: surveys (80%), interviews (20%), deliberative processes (15%) and others (5%) in various countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, and United States. Five themes emerged from our analysis. The public favored the life cycle (50%) and absolute age (45%) as a tiebreaker. Other values considered important were reciprocity, solidarity, equality, instrumental value, patient merit, efficiency, and stewardship. Among the new findings were a preference for patient nationality and those affected by COVID-19.

Conclusions

There is a preference for favoring younger patients over older patients when there is a tie between similar patients, with a slight tendency to favor intergenerational equity. Variability was found in the public's perspectives on tiebreakers and their values. This variability was related to socio-cultural and religious factors. More studies are needed to understand the public's perspective on tiebreakers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44250-023-00027-9.

Mechanical ventilation for COVID-19: Outcomes following discharge from inpatient treatment

Though mechanical ventilation (MV) is used to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), little is known about the long-term health implications of this treatment. Our objective was to determine the association between MV for treatment of COVID-19 and likelihood of hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, and reason for readmission. This study was a longitudinal observational design with electronic health record (EHR) data collected between 3/1/2020 and 1/31/2021. Participants included 17,652 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during this period who were followed through 6/30/2021. The primary outcome was readmission to inpatient care following discharge. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and reason for readmission. Rates of readmission and mortality were compared between ventilated and non-ventilated patients using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Differences in reasons for readmission by MV status were compared using multinomial logistic regression. Patient characteristics and measures of illness severity were balanced between those who were mechanically ventilated and those who were not utilizing 1-to-1 propensity score matching. The sample had a median age of 63 and was 47.1% female. There were 1,131 (6.4%) patients who required MV during their initial hospitalization. Rates (32.1% versus 9.9%) and hazard of readmission were greater for patients requiring MV in the propensity score-matched samples [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.34 (2.72-4.10)]. Rates (15.3% versus 3.4%) and hazard [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) = 3.12 (2.32-4.20)] of all-cause mortality were also associated with MV status. Ventilated patients were more likely to be readmitted for reasons which were classified as COVID-19, infectious diseases, and respiratory diagnoses compared to non-ventilated patients. Mechanical ventilation is a necessary treatment for severely ill patients. However, it may be associated with adverse outcomes including hospital readmission and death. More intense post-discharge monitoring may be warranted to decrease this associational finding.

The Ethics of Implementing Emergency Resource Allocation Protocols

AbstractWe explore the various ethical challenges that arise during the practical implementation of an emergency resource allocation protocol. We argue that to implement an allocation plan in a crisis, a hospital system must complete five tasks: (1) formulate a set of general principles for allocation, (2) apply those principles to the disease at hand to create a concrete protocol, (3) collect the data required to apply the protocol, (4) construct a system to implement triage decisions with those data, and (5) create a system for managing the consequences of implementing the protocol, including the effects on those who must carry out the plan, the medical staff, and the general public. Here we illustrate the complexities of each task and provide tentative solutions, by describing the experiences of the Coronavirus Ethics Response Group, an interdisciplinary team formed to address the ethical issues in pandemic resource planning at the University of Rochester Medical Center. While the plan was never put into operation, the process of preparing for emergency implementation exposed ethical issues that require attention.

Triage Policies at U.S. Hospitals with Pediatric Intensive Care Units

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the prevalence and content of pediatric triage policies.

METHODS

We surveyed and solicited policies from U.S. hospitals with pediatric intensive care units. Policies were analyzed using qualitative methods and coded by 2 investigators.

RESULTS

Thirty-four of 120 institutions (28%) responded. Twenty-five (74%) were freestanding children's hospitals and 9 (26%) were hospitals within a hospital. Nine (26%) had approved policies, 9 (26%) had draft policies, 5 (14%) were developing policies, and 7 (20%) did not have policies. Nineteen (68%) institutions shared their approved or draft policy. Eight (42%) of those policies included neonates. The polices identified 0 to 5 (median 2) factors to prioritize patients. The most common factors were short- (17, 90%) and long- (14, 74%) term predicted mortality. Pediatric scoring systems included Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (12, 63%) and Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology and Perinatal Extensions-II (4, 21%). Thirteen (68%) policies described a formal algorithm. The most common tiebreakers were random/lottery (10, 71%) and life cycles (9, 64%). The majority (15, 79%) of policies specified the roles of triage team members and 13 (68%) precluded those participating in patient care from making triage decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

While many institutions still do not have pediatric triage policies, there appears to be a trend among those with policies to utilize a formal algorithm that focuses on short- and long-term predicted mortality and that incorporates age-appropriate scoring systems. Additional work is needed to expand access to pediatric-specific policies, to validate scoring systems, and to address health disparities.

The pandemic is not the great equalizer: front-line labor and rationing in COVID-19 critical care

BACKGROUND

Framed as "the great-equalizer," the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified pressure to adapt critical care labor and resulted in rationing by healthcare workers across the world.

OBJECTIVE

To critically investigate how hospital intensive care units are critical sites of care labor and examine how rationing highlights key features of healthcare labor and its inequalities.

METHODS

A practice-oriented ethnographic study was conducted in a United States academic ICU by a medical anthropologist and medical intensivists with global health expertise. The analysis drew on 57 in-depth interviews and 25 months of participant observation between 2020 and 2021.

RESULTS

Embodied labor constitutes sites and practices of shortage or rationing along three domains: equipment and technology, labor, and emotions and energy. The resulting workers' practices of adaptation and resilience point to a potentially more robust global health labor politics based on seeing rationing as work.

CONCLUSION

Studies of pandemic rationing practices and critical care labor can disrupt too-simple comparative narratives of Global North/South divides. Further studies and efforts must address the toll of healthcare labor.

The draw of the few: the challenge of crisis guidelines for extremely scarce resources

The COVID-19 pandemic has focused considerable attention on crisis standards of care (CSCs). Most public CSCs at present are effective tools for allocating scarce but not uncommon resources (like ventilators and dialysis machines). However, a different set of challenges arise with regard to extremely scarce resources (ESRs), where the number of patients in need may exceed the availability of the intervention by magnitudes of hundreds or thousands. Using the allocation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines as a case study, this paper argues for a different set of CSCs specifically for ESRs and explores four principles (transparency, uniformity, equity and impact) that should shape such guidelines.

In-line miniature 3D-printed pressure-cycled ventilator maintains respiratory homeostasis in swine with induced acute pulmonary injury

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the need for inexpensive, easy-to-use, rapidly mass-produced resuscitation devices that could be quickly distributed in areas of critical need. In-line miniature ventilators based on principles of fluidics ventilate patients by automatically oscillating between forced inspiration and assisted expiration as airway pressure changes, requiring only a continuous supply of pressurized oxygen. Here, we designed three miniature ventilator models to operate in specific pressure ranges along a continuum of clinical lung injury (mild, moderate, and severe injury). Three-dimensional (3D)-printed prototype devices evaluated in a lung simulator generated airway pressures, tidal volumes, and minute ventilation within the targeted range for the state of lung disease each was designed to support. In testing in domestic swine before and after induction of pulmonary injury, the ventilators for mild and moderate injury met the design criteria when matched with the appropriate degree of lung injury. Although the ventilator for severe injury provided the specified design pressures, respiratory rate was elevated with reduced minute ventilation, a result of lung compliance below design parameters. Respiratory rate reflected how well each ventilator matched the injury state of the lungs and could guide selection of ventilator models in clinical use. This simple device could help mitigate shortages of conventional ventilators during pandemics and other disasters requiring rapid access to advanced airway management, or in transport applications for hands-free ventilation.

Early insights of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Veterans' Affairs spinal cord injury and disorders population

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVES

The primary outcome of the study was to identify patient characteristics associated with a positive COVID-19 test. The secondary outcome was to identify patient characteristics associated with mortality from COVID-19.

SETTING

Veterans Health Administration (VHA) National Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders (SCI) Registry, created by the National Spinal Cord Injury and Disorders SCI Program Office in March 2020.

METHODS

Data was analyzed in the form of descriptive statistics and then subsequent regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 4,562 persons with SCI were tested for COVID-19 between March and July 2020, and 290 were positive. The study found that African Americans had increased odds of testing positive for COVID-19 (OR 1.53 (1.18-2.00), p &lt; 0.01). Increased age correlated with increased odds of mortality after testing positive for COVID-19 (1.046 (1.003-1.090)). Non-smokers had lower odds of mortality following positive COVID-19 test (0.15 (0.04-0.52)). No association was found between neurologic level of injury (NLI) and positive COVID-19 test or increased mortality. Increased Body Mass Index (BMI) did correlate with positive COVID-19 test but not increased mortality. The case fatality rate for persons with SCI and a positive test for COVID-19 was 12%.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to define the risk factors for patients with SCI to elucidate and mitigate individual and population risks. These risk factors also can play a role in determining the allocation of critical healthcare resources.

Critical Care Pandemic Preparation: Considerations and Lessons Learned from COVID-19

Pandemics, increases in disease incidence that affect multiple regions of the world, present huge challenges to health care systems and in particular to policymakers, public health authorities, clinicians, and all health care workers (HCWs). The recent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of severely ill patients, many of whom who have required hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The discipline of critical care is a vital and integral component of pandemic preparedness. Safe and effective critical care has the potential to improve outcomes, motivate individuals to seek timely medical attention, and attenuate the devastating sequelae of a severe pandemic. To achieve this, suitable critical care planning and preparation are essential.

Polarized Citizen Preferences for the Ethical Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in 20 Countries

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.

Epidemiology of Organ Failure Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic Surge Conditions

BACKGROUND

Understanding the distribution of organ failure before and during the COVID-19 pandemic surge can provide a deeper understanding of how the pandemic strained health care systems and affected outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the distribution of organ failure in 3 New York City hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adult admissions across hospitals from February 1, 2020, through May 31, 2020, was conducted. The cohort was stratified into those admitted before March 17, 2020 (prepandemic) and those admitted on or after that date (SARS-CoV-2-positive and non-SARS-CoV-2). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were computed every 2 hours for each admission.

RESULTS

A total of 1 794 975 scores were computed for 20 704 admissions. Before and during the pandemic, renal failure was the most common type of organ failure at admission and respiratory failure was the most common type of hospital-onset organ failure. The SARS-CoV-2-positive group showed a 231% increase in respiratory failure compared with the prepandemic group. More than 65% of hospital-onset organ failure in the prepandemic group and 83% of hospital-onset respiratory failure in the SARS-CoV-2-positive group occurred outside intensive care units. The SARS-CoV-2-positive group showed a 341% increase in multiorgan failure compared with the prepandemic group. Compared with the prepandemic and non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had significantly higher mortality for the same admission and maximum organ failure score.

CONCLUSION

Most hospital-onset organ failure began outside intensive care units, with a marked increase in multiorgan failure during pandemic surge conditions and greater hospital mortality for the severity of organ failure.

How Common SOFA and Ventilator Time Trial Criteria Would Have Performed During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Observational Simulated Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how key aspects of New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (NYSVAG)-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score criteria and ventilator time trials -might perform with respect to the frequency of ventilator reallocation and survival to hospital discharge in a simulated cohort of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients.

METHODS

Single center retrospective observational and simulation cohort study of 884 critically ill COVID-19 patients undergoing ventilator allocation per NYSVAG.

RESULTS

In total, 742 patients (83.9%) would have had their ventilator reallocated during the 11-day observation period, 280 (37.7%) of whom would have otherwise survived to hospital discharge if provided with a ventilator. Only 65 (18.1%) of the observed surviving patients would have survived by NYSVAG. Extending ventilator time trials from 2 to 5 days resulted in a 49.2% increase in simulated survival to discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of a protracted respiratory pandemic, implementation of NYSVAG or similar protocols could lead to a high degree of ventilator reallocation, including withdrawal from patients who might otherwise survive. Longer ventilator time trials might lead to improved survival for COVID-19 patients given their protracted respiratory failure. Further studies are needed to understand the survival of patients receiving reallocated ventilators to determine whether implementation of NYSVAG would improve overall survival.

Clinician Ethical Perspectives on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Practice

PURPOSE

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an expensive and scarce life sustaining treatment provided to certain critically ill patients. Little is known about the informed consent process for ECMO or clinician viewpoints on ethical complexities related to ECMO in practice.

METHODS

We sent a cross-sectional survey to all departments providing ECMO within 7 United States hospitals in January 2021. One clinician from each department completed the 42-item survey representing their department.

RESULTS

Fourteen departments within 7 hospitals responded (response rate 78%, N = 14/18). The mean time spent consenting patients or surrogate decision-makers for ECMO varied, from 7.5 minutes (95% CI 5-10) for unstable patients to 20 minutes (95% CI 15-30) for stable patients (p = 0.0001). Few clinician respondents (29%) report patients or surrogate decision-makers always possess informed consent for ECMO. Most departments (92%) have absolute exclusion criteria for ECMO such as older age (43%, cutoffs ranging from 60-75 years), active malignancy (36%), and elevated body mass index (29%). A significant minority of departments (29%) do not always offer the option to withdraw ECMO to patients or surrogate decision-makers. For patients who cannot be liberated from ECMO and are ineligible for heart or lung transplant, 36% of departments would recommend the patient be removed from ECMO and 64% would continue ECMO support.

CONCLUSION

Adequate informed consent for ECMO is a major ethical challenge, and the content of these discussions varies. Use of categorical exclusion criteria and withdrawal of ECMO if a patient cannot be liberated from it differ among departments and institutions.

COVID-19 double jeopardy: the overwhelming impact of the social determinants of health

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained healthcare systems by creating a tragic imbalance between needs and resources. Governments and healthcare organizations have adapted to this pronounced scarcity by applying allocation guidelines to facilitate life-or-death decision-making, reduce bias, and save as many lives as possible. However, we argue that in societies beset by longstanding inequities, these approaches fall short as mortality patterns for historically discriminated against communities have been disturbingly higher than in the general population.

Methods

We review attack and fatality rates; survey allocation protocols designed to deal with the extreme scarcity characteristic of the earliest phases of the pandemic; and highlight the larger ethical perspectives (Utilitarianism, non-Utilitarian Rawlsian justice) that might justify such allocation practices.

Results

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically amplified the dire effects of disparities with respect to the social determinants of health. Patients in historically marginalized groups not only have significantly poorer health prospects but also lower prospects of accessing high quality medical care and benefitting from it even when available. Thus, mortality among minority groups has ranged from 1.9 to 2.4 times greater than the rest of the population. Standard allocation schemas, that prioritize those most likely to benefit, perpetuate and may even exacerbate preexisting systemic injustices.

Conclusions

To be better prepared for the inevitable next pandemic, we must urgently begin the monumental project of addressing and reforming the structural inequities in US society that account for the strikingly disparate mortality rates we have witnessed over the course of the current pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-022-01629-0.

Perspectives of Triage Team Members Participating in Statewide Triage Simulations for Scarce Resource Allocation During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Washington State

IMPORTANCE

The 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.

OBJECTIVE

To identify themes illuminating triage team members' perspectives and experiences pertaining to the triage process.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This 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 MEASURES

Emergent themes describing the triage process and experience of triage team members.

RESULTS

Among 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 RELEVANCE

This 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.

A review of COVID-19’s impact on modern medical systems from a health organization management perspective

The novel SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) disrupted many facets of the healthcare industry throughout the pandemic and has likely permanently altered modern healthcare delivery. It has been shown that existing healthcare infrastructure influenced national responses to COVID-19, but the current implications and resultant sequelae of the pandemic on the organizational framework of healthcare remains largely unknown. This paper aims to review how aspects of contemporary medical systems – the physical environment of care delivery, global healthcare supply chains, workforce structures, information and communication systems, scientific collaboration, as well as policy frameworks – evolved in the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Effect of a Prioritization Score on the Inter-Hospital Transfer Time Management of Severe COVID-19 Patients. A Quasi-Experimental Intervention Study

Background

The overburdening of the healthcare system during the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic is driving the need to create new tools to improve the management of inter-hospital transport for patients with a severe COVID-19 infection.

Objective

The aim of this study was to analyse the usefulness of the application of a prioritization score (IHTCOVID-19) for inter-hospital transfer of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Methods

The study has a quasi-experimental design and was conducted on the Medical Emergency System, the pre-hospital emergency department of the public company belonging to the Autonomous Government of Catalonia that manages urgent healthcare in the region. Patients with a severe COVID-19 infection requiring inter-hospital transport were consecutively included. The pre-intervention period was from 1 to 31 March 2020, and the intervention period with the IHTCOVID-19 score was from 1 to 30 April 2020 (from 8 am to 8 pm). The prioritization score comprises four priority categories, with Priority 0 being the highest and Priority 3 being the lowest. Inter-hospital transfer (IHT) management times (alert-assignment time, resource management time and total central management time) and their variability were evaluated according to whether or not the IHTCOVID-19 score was applied.

Results

A total of 344 IHTs were included: 189 (54.9%) in the pre-intervention period and 155 (45.1%) in the post-intervention period. The majority of patients were male and the most frequent age range was between 50 and 70 years. According to the IHTCOVID-19 score, 12 (3.5%) transfers were classified as Priority 0, 66 (19.4%) as Priority 1, 247 (71.8%) as Priority 2 and 19 (5.6%) as Priority 3. Overall, with the application of the IHTCOVID-19 score, there was a significant reduction in total central management time [from 112.4 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 281.3) to 89.8 min (IQR 154.9); P = 0.012]. This significant reduction was observed in Priority 0 patients [286.2 (IQR 218.5) to 42.0 min (IQR 58); P = 0.018] and Priority 1 patients [130.3 (IQR 297.3) to 75.4 min (IQR 91.1); P = 0.034]. After applying the IHTCOVID-19 score, the average time of the process decreased by 22.6 min, and variability was reduced from 618.1 to 324.0 min.

Conclusion

The application of the IHTCOVID-19 score in patients with a severe COVID-19 infection reduces IHT management times and variability.

Preintubation Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score for Predicting COVID-19 Mortality: External Validation Using Electronic Health Record From 86 U.S. Healthcare Systems to Appraise Current Ventilator Triage Algorithms

OBJECTIVES:

Prior research has hypothesized the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to be a poor predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Yet, several U.S. states have proposed SOFA-based algorithms for ventilator triage during crisis standards of care. Using a large cohort of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, we externally validated the predictive capacity of the preintubation SOFA score for mortality prediction with and without other commonly used algorithm elements.

DESIGN:

Multicenter, retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data.

SETTING:

Eighty-six U.S. health systems.

PATIENTS:

Patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between January 1, 2020, and February 14, 2021, and subsequently initiated on mechanical ventilation.

INTERVENTIONS:

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

Among 15,122 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, SOFA score alone demonstrated poor discriminant accuracy for inhospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients using the validation cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.65–0.67). Discriminant accuracy was even poorer using SOFA score categories (AUC, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.54–0.55). Age alone demonstrated greater discriminant accuracy for inhospital mortality than SOFA score (AUC, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69–0.72). Discriminant accuracy for mortality improved upon addition of age to the continuous SOFA score (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73–0.76) and categorized SOFA score (AUC, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.71–0.73) models, respectively. The addition of comorbidities did not substantially increase model discrimination. Of 36 U.S. states with crisis standards of care guidelines containing ventilator triage algorithms, 31 (86%) feature the SOFA score. Of these, 25 (81%) rely heavily on the SOFA score (12 exclusively propose SOFA; 13 place highest weight on SOFA or propose SOFA with one other variable).

CONCLUSIONS:

In a U.S. cohort of over 15,000 ventilated patients with COVID-19, the SOFA score displayed poor predictive accuracy for short-term mortality. Our findings warrant reappraisal of the SOFA score’s implementation and weightage in existing ventilator triage pathways in current U.S. crisis standards of care guidelines.

COVID-19 and Biomedical Experts: When Epistemic Authority is (Probably) Not Enough

This critical essay evaluates the potential integration of distinct kinds of expertise in policymaking, especially during situations of critical emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This article relies on two case studies: (i) herd immunity (UK) and (ii) restricted access to ventilators for disabled people (USA). These case studies are discussed as examples of experts' recommendations that have not been widely accepted, though they were made within the boundaries of expert epistemic authority. While the fundamental contribution of biomedical experts in devising public health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic is fully recognized, this paper intends to discuss potential issues and limitations that may arise when adopting a strict expert-based approach. By drawing attention to the interests of minorities (disenfranchized and underrepresented groups), the paper also claims a broader notion of "relevant expertise." This critical essay thus calls for the necessity of wider inclusiveness and representativeness in the process underlying public health policymaking.

Patient traits shape health-care stakeholders' choices on how to best allocate life-saving care

During global pandemics, health-care decision makers often face critical shortages of life-saving medical equipment. How do medical stakeholders prioritize which patients are most deserving of scarce treatment? We report the results of three conjoint experiments conducted in the United States in 2020, testing for biases in US physicians', citizens' and elected politicians' preferences for scarce ventilator distribution. We found that all stakeholders prioritized younger patients and patients who had a higher probability of surviving with ventilator access. When patients' survivability was tied, physicians prioritized patients from racial/ethnic minorities (that is, Asian, Black and Hispanic patients) over all-else-equal white patients, religious minorities (that is, Muslim patients) over religious majority group members (that is, Catholic patients) and patients of lower socio-economic status over wealthier patients. The public also prioritized Black and Hispanic patients over white patients but were biased against religious minorities (that is, Atheist and Muslim patients) relative to religious majority group members. Elected politicians were also biased against Atheist patients. Our effects varied by political party-with Republican physicians, politicians and members of the public showing bias against religious minority patients and Democratic physicians showing preferential treatment of racial and religious minorities. Our results suggest that health-care stakeholders' personal biases impact decisions on who deserves life-saving medical equipment.

Modeling Outcomes Using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score-Based Ventilator Triage Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To model performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score-based ventilator allocation guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study design was used. Study sites included 3 New York City hospitals in a single academic medical center. We included a random sample (205) of adult patients who were intubated (1002) from March 25, 2020, till April 29, 2020. Protocol criteria adapted from the New York State's 2015 guidelines were applied to determine which patients would have had mechanical ventilation withheld or withdrawn.

RESULTS

117 (57%) patients would have been identified for ventilator withdrawal or withholding based on the triage guidelines. Of those 117 patients, 28 (24%) survived hospitalization. Overall, 65 (32%) patients survived to discharge.

CONCLUSION

Triage protocols aim to maximize survival by redirecting ventilators to those most likely to survive. Over 50% of this sample would have been identified as candidates for ventilator exclusion. Clinical judgment would therefore still be needed in ventilator reallocation, thus re-introducing bias and moral distress. This data suggests limited utility for SOFA score-based ventilator rationing. It raises the question of whether there is sufficient ethical justification to impose a life-ending decision based on a SOFA scoring method on some patients in order to offer potential benefit to a modest number of others.

Public perceptions of psychiatric, justice-involved, and elderly populations during the COVID-19 pandemic

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has had a significant global impact, with all countries facing the challenge of mitigating its spread. An unprecedented shortage of medical resources has raised concerns regarding allocation and prioritization of supplies, which may exacerbate social discrepancies for already vulnerable populations. As public opinion can impact healthcare policies, we aimed to characterize perceptions of psychiatric, forensic psychiatry, correctional, and elderly populations regarding COVID-19-related issues. This web-based study recruited participants (n = 583) from the general population in North America. The survey included perceptions of the pandemic, hypothetical scenarios on resource prioritization, and Likert scale questions. The majority of participants were cisgender female (72.7%), aged 31-74 years (80.0%), married (48.0%), retired (52.7%), resided in Canada (73.9%), had a college/university degree (50.9%) and had never worked in healthcare (66.21%). Most respondents reported not having a criminal history (95.88%), or a psychiatric disorder (78.73%). Perceptions of vulnerable populations were significantly different for resource allocation and prioritization (e.g., ventilator and vaccine resources, all p < 0.001). Healthcare workers and the elderly were commonly ranked the highest priority for resources, while forensic psychiatry and correctional populations were given the lowest priority. A high rate of disagreement was found for the more stigmatizing questions in the survey (all p < 0.0001). Our results suggest that perception from members of the general public in North America is aligned with current practices for resource allocation. However, individuals that already face social and health disparities may face additional opposition in decision-making for COVID-19 resources.

Rationing, racism and justice: advancing the debate around 'colourblind' COVID-19 ventilator allocation

Withholding or withdrawing life-saving ventilators can become necessary when resources are insufficient. In the USA, such rationing has unique social justice dimensions. Structural elements of dominant allocation frameworks simultaneously advantage white communities, and disadvantage Black communities-who already experience a disproportionate burden of COVID-19-related job losses, hospitalisations and mortality. Using the example of New Jersey's Crisis Standard of Care policy, we describe how dominant rationing guidance compounds for many Black patients prior unfair structural disadvantage, chiefly due to the way creatinine and life expectancy are typically considered.We outline six possible policy options towards a more just approach: improving diversity in decision processes, adjusting creatinine scores, replacing creatinine, dropping creatinine, finding alternative measures, adding equity weights and rejecting the dominant model altogether. We also contrast these options with making no changes, which is not a neutral default, but in separate need of justification, despite a prominent claim that it is simply based on 'objective medical knowledge'. In the regrettable absence of fair federal guidance, hospital and state-level policymakers should reflect on which of these, or further options, seem feasible and justifiable.Irrespective of which approach is taken, all guidance should be supplemented with a monitoring and reporting requirement on possible disparate impacts. The hope that we will be able to continue to avoid rationing ventilators must not stand in the way of revising guidance in a way that better promotes health equity and racial justice, both to be prepared, and given the significant expressive value of ventilator guidance.

Sequential organ failure assessment, ventilator rationing and evolving triage guidance: new evidence underlines the need to recognise and revise, unjust allocation frameworks

We respond to recent comments on our proposal to improve justice in ventilator triage, in which we used as an example New Jersey's (NJ) publicly available and legally binding Directive Number 2020-03. We agree with Bernard Lo and Doug White that equity implications of triage frameworks should be continually reassessed, which is why we offered six concrete options for improvement, and called for monitoring the consequences of adopted triage models. We disagree with their assessment that we mis-characterised their Model Guidance, as included in the NJ Directive, in ways that undermine our conclusions. They suggest we erroneously described their model as a two-criterion allocation framework; that recognising other operant criterion reveals it 'likely mitigate[s] rather than exacerbate[s] racial disparities during triage', and allege that concerns about inequitable outcomes are 'without evidence'. We highlight two major studies robustly demonstrating why concerns about disparate outcomes are justified. We also show that White and Lo seek to retrospectively-and counterfactually-correct the version of the Model Guideline included in the NJ Directive. However, as our facsimile reproductions show, neither the alleged four-criteria form, nor other key changes, such as dropping the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, are found in the Directive. These points matter because (1) our conclusions hence stand, (2) because the public version of the Model Guidance had not been updated to reduce the risk of inequitable outcomes until June 2021 and (3) NJ's Directive still does not reflect these revisions, and, hence, represents a less equitable version, as acknowledged by its authors. We comment on broader policy implications and call for ways of ensuring accurate, transparent and timely updates for users of high-stakes guidelines.

Priorities Towards Fair Allocation of Ventilators During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Delphi Study

Background

COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in severe shortage in vital resources, including invasive mechanical ventilators. The current imbalance between demand and supply of mechanical ventilators has called for investigations on the fair allocation of mechanical ventilators.

Objective

To determine the priorities of the medical experts towards the fair allocation of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This study was conducted from May 28 to Aug 20, 2020. The questionnaire was sent to 50 medical specialists as the Delphi panel. Participants were asked to rate each prioritising factor: “−1” for low priority, “+1” for high priority, and “Zero” for equal priority.

Results

Among 38 experts who responded to the email, the responses of 35 were analysed. 31 (88.6%) participants recommended that pregnant women be considered high priority in allocating ventilators, 27 (77.1%) mothers of children <5 years, 26 (74.3%) patients under 80-years, and 23 (65.7%) front-line-healthcare-workers. In contrast, 28 (80.0) participants recommended that patients who are terminally ill should be considered as a low priority, 27 (77.1%) patients with active-malignancy, 25 (71.4%) neurodegenerative diseases, and 16 (45.7%) patients aged >80. The panel did not reach a consensus regarding the role of patients' laboratory profiles, underlying diseases, or drug abuse in the prioritisation of ventilators.

Conclusions

The panel considered pregnant mothers, mothers of children under 5 years, age groups younger than 80, and front-line healthcare workers to have high priority in allocating mechanical ventilators.

Treatment intensity and mortality among COVID-19 patients with dementia: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether dementia is associated with treatment intensity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

This study includes review of the medical records for patients >60 years of age (n = 5394) hospitalized with COVID-19 from 132 community hospitals between March and June 2020. We examined the relationships between dementia and treatment intensity (including intensive care unit [ICU] admission and mechanical ventilation [MV] and care processes that may influence them, including advance care planning [ACP] billing and do-not-resuscitate [DNR] orders) and in-hospital mortality adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, month of hospitalization, and clustering within hospital. We further explored the effect of ACP conversations on the relationship between dementia and outcomes, both at the individual patient level (effect of having ACP) and at the hospital level (effect of being treated at a hospital with low: <10%, medium 10%-20%, or high >20% ACP rates).

RESULTS

Ten percent (n = 522) of the patients had documented dementia. Dementia patients were older (>80 years: 60% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001), had a lower burden of comorbidity (3+ comorbidities: 31% vs. 38%, p = 0.003), were more likely to have ACP (28% vs. 17%, p < 0.0001) and a DNR order (52% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001), had similar rates of ICU admission (26% vs. 28%, p = 0.258), were less likely to receive MV (11% vs. 16%, p = 0.001), and more likely to die (22% vs. 14%, p < 0.0001). Differential treatment intensity among patients with dementia was concentrated in hospitals with low, dementia-biased ACP billing practices (risk-adjusted ICU use: 21% vs. 30%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, p = 0.016; risk-adjusted MV use: 6% vs. 16%, OR = 0.3, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Dementia was associated with lower treatment intensity and higher mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Differential treatment intensity was concentrated in low ACP billing hospitals suggesting an interplay between provider bias and "preference-sensitive" care for COVID-19.

Ethics of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation under Conventional and Crisis Standards of Care

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a form of life support for cardiac and/or pulmonary failure with unique ethical challenges compared to other forms of life support. Ethical challenges with ECMO exist when conventional standards of care apply, and are exacerbated during periods of absolute ECMO scarcity when "crisis standards of care" are instituted. When conventional standards of care apply, we propose that it is ethically permissible to withhold placing patients on ECMO for reasons of technical futility or when patients have terminal, short-term prognoses that are untreatable by ECMO. Under crisis standards of care, it is ethically permissible to broaden exclusionary criteria to also withhold ECMO from patients who have a low likelihood of recovery, to maximize the overall number of lives saved. Unilateral withdrawal of ECMO against a patient's preferences is unethical under conventional standards of care, but is ethical under crisis standards of care to increase access to ECMO to others in society. ECMO should only be rationed when true scarcity exists, and allocation protocols should be transparent to the public. When rationing must occur under crisis standards of care, it is imperative that oversight bodies assess for inequities in the allocation of ECMO and make frequent changes to improve any inequities.

Protocol to assess performance of crisis standards of care guidelines for clinical triage

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states developed Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) algorithms to triage allocation of scarce resources to maximize population-wide benefit. While CSC algorithms were developed by ethical debate, this protocol guides their quantitative assessment. For CSC algorithms, this protocol addresses (1) adapting algorithms for empirical study, (2) quantifying predictive accuracy, and (3) simulating clinical decision-making. This protocol provides a framework for healthcare systems and governments to test the performance of CSC algorithms to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals.

For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Jezmir et al. (2021).

•

Scoring with Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) triage algorithms

•

Assessing the predictive accuracy of triage algorithms

•

Simulating clinical decision-making by triage algorithms

•

Troubleshooting disease severity, comorbidity scoring, and ties

Medical Ethics, Moral Courage, and the Embrace of Fallibility

Experts have an obligation to make difficult decisions rather than offloading these decisions onto others who may be less well equipped to make them. This commentary considers this obligation through the lens of drafting critical care rationing protocols to address COVID-19-induced scarcity. The author recalls her own experience as a member of multiple groups charged with the generation of protocols for how hospitals and states should ration critical care resources like ventilators and intensive care unit beds, in the event that there would not be enough to go around as the COVID-19 pandemic intensified. She identifies several obvious lessons learned through this process, including the need to combat the pervasive effects of racism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination; to enhance the diversity, equity, and inclusion built into the process of drafting rationing protocols; and to embrace transparency, including acknowledging failings and fallibility. She also comes to a more complicated conclusion: Individuals in a position of authority, such as medical ethicists, have a moral obligation to embrace assertion, even when such assertions may well turn out to be wrong. She notes that when the decision-making process is grounded in legitimacy, medical ethics must have the moral courage to embrace fallibility.

Protecting our Elders and Developing Equitable Policies During Public Health Emergencies: Ethical Recommendations

Purpose of the Review

Experiences of patients, families, healthcare workers and health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic and recent national focus on racial justice have forced a reconsideration of policies and processes of providing care in crisis situations when resources are scarce. The purpose of this review is to present recent developments in conceptualizing ethical crisis standards.

Recent findings

Several recent papers have raised concerns that “objective” scarce resource allocation protocols will serve to exacerbate underlying social inequities. Older adults and their formal and informal caregivers suffered from intersecting planning failures including lack of adequate stockpiling of personal protective equipment, failure to protect essential workers, neglect of long-term care facilities and homecare in disaster planning and de-prioiritization in triage algorithms.

Summary

Revision of disaster planning guidelines is urgent. The time is now to apply lessons learned from COVID-19 before another disaster occurs. We present several suggestions for future plans.