Coronavirus Disease 2019 Triage Teams: Death by Numbers

Ethical Management of COVID-19 Pandemic at a Neurological Hospital: The Ethicovid Report

BACKGROUND

During the first wave of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it was necessary to prepare for the possibility of triaging patients who could benefit from access to an intensive care unit (ICU). In our neuroscience institution, the challenge was to continue to manage usual neurological emergencies as well as the influx of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We report the experience of an ethical consulting unit to support care clinical decisions during the first wave of the pandemic (March 16 to April 30, 2020). Three objective evaluation criteria were defined: 2 of these criteria, patient's factors and general disease severity (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), were common to all patients, and the third was the specific severity of the disease (neurological for brain injury, respiratory for COVID-19). Given our scarce resources, we used a high probability of a 3-month modified Rankin Scale ≤3 as the criterion for further resuscitation and management.

RESULTS

A total of 295 patients were admitted during the first pandemic wave; 111 with COVID-19 and 184 with neurological emergencies. The ethical unit's expertise was sought for 75 clinical situations in 56 patients (35 COVID-19 and 21 neurological). Decisions were as follows: 11% no limitation on care, 5% expectant care with reassessment (maximum therapy to assess possible progress pending decision), 67% partial limitation (no intensification of care or no transfer to ICU), and 17% limitation of curative care. At no time did a lack of availability of ICU beds require the ethical unit to advise against admission to the ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

Our ethical consulting unit allowed for collegial ethical decision-making in line with international recommendations. This model could be easily transferred to other triage situations, provided it is adapted to the local context.

Psychological Toll of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An In-Depth Exploration of Anxiety, Depression, and Insomnia and the Influence of Quarantine Measures on Daily Life

The COVID-19 pandemic, on a global scale, has prompted multifaceted challenges, including a notable psychological toll on the general population. This study uses mixed-method approach for a nuanced exploration of these experiences. Using a phenomenological strategy, qualitative responses from 999 participants were analyzed regarding their pandemic-induced anxiety and the influence of quarantine measures on their lives. Quantitative measures, including the revised Impact of Event Scale (IES-R), patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the seven-item generalized anxiety disorder assessment (GAD-7), and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), were used to quantify trauma, depression, anxiety, and insomnia attributed to COVID-19. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was utilized for quantitative data analysis. The anxiety-related responses were mainly clustered into four themes: life threats, support shortage, economic consequences, and disruptions to family and social life. Subthemes that addressed the perceived effects encapsulated disruptions to academic and professional lives, familial and social relationships, psychopathological stress, and movement limitations. The findings from quantitative analysis revealed the significant associations between COVID-19-related trauma and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and insomnia, as indicated by coefficients exceeding 0.10 (all z-values > 1.96; p-values < 0.05). In conclusion, the findings underscore COVID-19's role in escalating anxiety, influenced by various factors, and its disruptive effects on daily life due to quarantine measures. The strong associations between the pandemic and the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and insomnia underscore the urgency of comprehensive psychological and public health interventions to alleviate these impacts.

Putting ICU triage guidelines into practice: A simulation study using observations and interviews

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted many countries to formulate guidelines on how to deal with a worst-case scenario in which the number of patients needing intensive care unit (ICU) care exceeds the number of available beds. This study aims to explore the experiences of triage teams when triaging fictitious patients with the Dutch triage guidelines. It provides an overview of the factors that influence decision-making when performing ICU triage with triage guidelines.

METHODS

Eight triage teams from four hospitals were given files of fictitious patients needing intensive care and instructed to triage these patients. Sessions were observed and audio-recorded. Four focus group interviews with triage team members were held to reflect on the sessions and the Dutch guidelines. The results were analyzed by inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The Dutch triage guidelines were the main basis for making triage decisions. However, some teams also allowed their own considerations (outside of the guidelines) to play a role when making triage decisions, for example to help avoid using non-medical criteria such as prioritization based on age group. Group processes also played a role in decision-making: triage choices can be influenced by the triagists' opinion on the guidelines and the carefulness with which they are applied. Intensivists, being most experienced in prognostication of critical illness, often had the most decisive role during triage sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the Dutch triage guidelines is feasible, but there were some inconsistencies in prioritization between teams that may be undesirable. ICU triage guideline writers should consider which aspects of their criteria might, when applied in practice, lead to inconsistencies or ethically questionable prioritization of patients. Practical training of triage team members in applying the guidelines, including explanation of the rationale underlying the triage criteria, might improve the willingness and ability of triage teams to follow the guidelines closely.

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.

The Ethical Unjustifications of COVID-19 Triage Committees

The ever-debated question of triage and allocating the life-saving ventilator during the COVID-19 pandemic has been repeatedly raised and challenged within the ethical community after shortages propelled doctors before life and death decisions (Anderson-Shaw and Zar 2020; Huxtable 2020; Jongepier 2020; Peterson, Largent, and Karlawish 2020). The British Medical Association's ethical guidance highlighted the possibility of an initial surge of patients that would outstrip the health system's ability to deliver care "to existing standards," where utilitarian measures have to be applied, and triage decisions need to maximize "overall benefit" (British Medical Association 2020, 3) In these emergency circumstances, triage that "grades according to their needs and the probable outcomes of intervention" will prioritize or eliminate patients for treatment, and health professionals may be faced with obligations to withhold or withdraw treatments to some patients in favour of others (British Medical Association 2020, 4). This piece is a response and extension to articles published on the manner of involvement for ethics and ethicists in pandemic triage decisions, particularly examining the ability and necessity of establishing triage committees to ameliorate scarce allocation decisions for physicians.

Triage and Allocation of Neurocritical Care Resources During the COVID 19 Pandemic - A National Survey

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.