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.

Moral Distress, Conscientious Practice, and the Endurance of Ethics in Health Care through Times of Crisis and Calm

When health professionals experience moral distress during routine clinical practice, they are challenged to maintain integrity through conscientious practice guided by ethical principles and virtues that promote the dignity of all human beings who need care. Their integrity also needs preservation during a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, especially when faced with triage protocols that allocate scarce resources. Although a crisis may change our ability to provide life-saving treatment to all who need it, a crisis should not change the ethical values that should always be guiding clinical care. Enduring ethical commitments should encourage clinicians to base treatment decisions on the medical needs of individual patients. This approach contrasts with utilitarian attempts to maximize selected aggregate outcomes by using scoring systems that use short-term and possibly long-term prognostic estimates to discriminate between patients and thereby treat them unequally in terms of their eligibility for life-sustaining treatment. During times of crisis and calm, moral communication allows clinicians to exercise moral agency and advocate for their individual patients, thereby demonstrating conscientious practice and resisting influences that may contribute to compartmentalization, moral injury, and burnout.

Using a web platform for equitable distribution of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: a case study in resource allocation

While medical countermeasures in COVID-19 have largely focused on vaccinations, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were early outpatient treatment options for COVID-positive patients. In Minnesota, a centralized access platform was developed to offer access to mAbs that linked over 31,000 patients to care during its operation. The website allowed patients, their representative, or providers to screen the patient for mAbs against Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) criteria and connect them with a treatment site if provisionally eligible. A validated clinical risk scoring system was used to prioritize patients during times of scarcity. Both an ethics and a clinical subject matter expert group advised the Minnesota Department of Health on equitable approaches to distribution across a range of situations as the pandemic evolved. This case study outlines the implementation of this online platform and clinical outcomes of its users. We assess the impact of referral for mAbs on hospitalizations and death during a period of scarcity, finding in particular that vaccination conferred a substantially larger protection against hospitalization than a referral for mAbs, but among unvaccinated users that did not get a referral, chances of hospitalization increased by 4.1 percentage points.

PHYSICIANS’ MORAL DUTIES DURING PANDEMICS

Background

Pandemics with devastating morbidity and mortality have occurred repeatedly throughout recorded history. Each new scourge seems to surprise governments, medical experts, and the public. The SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, for example, arrived as an unwelcome surprise to an unprepared world.

Discussion

Despite humanity's extensive experience with pandemics and their associated ethical dilemmas, no consensus has emerged on preferred normative standards to deal with them. In this article, we consider the ethical dilemmas faced by physicians who work in these risk-prone situations and propose a set of ethical norms for current and future pandemics. As front-line clinicians for critically ill patients during pandemics, emergency physicians will play a substantial role in making and implementing treatment allocation decisions.

Conclusion

Our proposed ethical norms should help future physicians make morally challenging choices during pandemics.

Catastrophic COVID-19 Delta Variant Surge in French West Indies: Report of an ICU Triage Policy

OBJECTIVES

Here, we report the management of a catastrophic COVID-19 Delta variant surge, which overloaded ICU capacity, using crisis standards of care (CSC) based on a multiapproach protocol.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

University Hospital of Guadeloupe.

PATIENTS

This study retrospectively included all patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia between August 11, 2021, and September 10, 2021, and were eligible for ICU admission.

INTERVENTION

Based on age, comorbidities, and disease severity, patients were assigned to three groups: Green (ICU admission as soon as possible), Orange (ICU admission after the admission of all patients in the Green group), and Red (no ICU admission).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among the 328 patients eligible for ICU admission, 100 (30%) were assigned to the Green group, 116 (35%) to the Orange group, and 112 (34%) to the Red group. No patient in the Green group died while waiting for an ICU bed, whereas 14 patients (12%) in the Orange group died while waiting for an ICU bed. The 90-day mortality rates were 24%, 37%, and 78% in the Green, Orange, and Red groups, respectively. A total of 130 patients were transferred to the ICU, including 79 from the Green group, 51 from the Orange group, and none from the Red group. Multivariate analysis revealed that among patients admitted to the ICU, death was independently associated with a longer time between ICU referral and ICU admission, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and the number of comorbidities, but not with triage group.

CONCLUSIONS

CSC based on a multiapproach protocol allowed admission of all patients with a good prognosis. Higher mortality was associated with late admission, rather than triage group.

The theoretical and practical arguments against the unilateral withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment during crisis standards of care: Does the Knobe effect apply to unilateral withdrawal?

Some argue that it is ethically justifiable to unilaterally withdraw life-sustaining treatment during crisis standards of care without the patient's consent in order to reallocate it to another patient with a better chance of survival. This justification has been supported by two lines of argument: the equivalence thesis and the rule of the double effect. We argue that there are theoretical issues with the first and practical ones with the second, as supported by an experiment aimed at exploring whether the Knobe effect, which affects the folk concept of intention, applies to situations of unilateral withdrawal. Fifty-two critical care physicians from one university were asked to ascribe intention in two hypothetical scenarios A and B in which outcomes differ-the patient from whom life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn dies in scenario A but survives in scenario B-but the intention, to save the other patient regardless of the outcome of the other, is the same. The survey was administered via a web-based survey and all answers were anonymous. A paired proportion test was used to compare responses to both questions. All 52 surveyed individuals responded in scenario A and 30 (57.7%) ascribed intention when outcomes were unfavorable, whereas 50 responded in scenario B and 8 (16%) ascribed intention when outcomes were favorable, a difference that was statistically significant (p < 0.001). There are theoretical and practical issues with the arguments proposed to justify the unilateral withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment based on the equivalence thesis and the rule of double effect.

Patient Information Items Needed to Guide the Allocation of Scarce Life-Sustaining Resources: A Delphi Study of Multidisciplinary Experts

OBJECTIVE

Plans for allocation of scarce life-sustaining resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic often include triage teams, but operational details are lacking, including what patient information is needed to make triage decisions.

METHODS

A Delphi study among Washington state disaster preparedness experts was performed to develop a list of patient information items needed for triage team decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts proposed and rated their agreement with candidate information items during asynchronous Delphi rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. Qualitative analysis was used to describe considerations arising in this deliberation. A timed simulation was performed to evaluate feasibility of data collection from the electronic health record.

RESULTS

Over 3 asynchronous Delphi rounds, 50 experts reached consensus on 24 patient information items, including patients' age, severe or end-stage comorbidities, the reason for and timing of admission, measures of acute respiratory failure, and clinical trajectory. Experts weighed complex considerations around how information items could support effective prognostication, consistency, accuracy, minimizing bias, and operationalizability of the triage process. Data collection took a median of 227 seconds (interquartile range = 205, 298) per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts achieved consensus on patient information items that were necessary and appropriate for informing triage teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Functionality of Scarce Healthcare Resource Triage Teams During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-Institutional Simulation Study

Plans for allocating scarce healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic commonly involve the activation of institutional triage teams. These teams would be responsible for selecting patients who are most likely to survive to be prioritized to receive scarce resources. However, there is little empirical support for this approach.

DESIGN

High-fidelity triage-team simulation study.

SETTING

Healthcare institutions in Washington state.

SUBJECTS

Triage teams, consisting of at least two senior clinicians and a bioethicist.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants reviewed a limited amount of deidentified information for a diverse sample of critically ill patients. Teams then assigned each patient to one of five prioritization categories defined by likelihood of survival to hospital discharge. The process was refined based on observation and participant feedback after which a second phase of simulations was conducted.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Feasibility was assessed by the time required for teams to perform their task. Prognostic accuracy was assessed by comparing teams' prediction about likelihood of survival to hospital discharge with real-world discharge outcomes. Agreement between the teams on prognostic categorization was evaluated using kappa statistics. Eleven triage team simulations (eight in phase 1 and three in phase 2) were conducted from December 2020 to February 2021. Overall, teams reviewed a median of 23 patient cases in each session (interquartile range [IQR], 17-29) and spent a median of 102 seconds (IQR, 50-268) per case. The concordance between expected survival and real-world survival to discharge was 71% (IQR, 64-76%). The overall agreement between teams for placement of patients into prognostic categories was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the potential feasibility, accuracy, and effectiveness of institutional triage teams informed by a limited set of patient information items as part of a strategy for allocating scarce resources in healthcare emergencies. Additional work is needed to refine the process and adapt it to local contexts.

Validation of a Crisis Standards of Care Model for Prioritization of Limited Resources During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Crisis in an Urban, Safety-Net, Academic Medical Center

OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare resources even in wealthy nations, necessitating rationing of limited resources without previously established crisis standards of care protocols. In Massachusetts, triage guidelines were designed based on acute illness and chronic life-limiting conditions. In this study, we sought to retrospectively validate this protocol to cohorts of critically ill patients from our hospital.

DESIGN

We applied our hospital-adopted guidelines, which defined severe and major chronic conditions as those associated with a greater than 50% likelihood of 1- and 5-year mortality, respectively, to a critically ill patient population. We investigated mortality for the same intervals.

SETTING

An urban safety-net hospital ICU.

PATIENTS

All adults hospitalized during April of 2015 and April 2019 identified through a clinical database search.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 365 admitted patients, 15.89% had one or more defined chronic life-limiting conditions. These patients had higher 1-year (46.55% vs 13.68%; p < 0.01) and 5-year (50.00% vs 17.22%; p < 0.01) mortality rates than those without underlying conditions. Irrespective of classification of disease severity, patients with metastatic cancer, congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and neurodegenerative disease had greater than 50% 1-year mortality, whereas patients with chronic lung disease and cirrhosis had less than 50% 1-year mortality. Observed 1- and 5-year mortality for cirrhosis, heart failure, and metastatic cancer were more variable when subdivided into severe and major categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with major and severe chronic medical conditions overall had 46.55% and 50.00% mortality at 1 and 5 years, respectively. However, mortality varied between conditions. Our findings appear to support a crisis standards protocol which focuses on acute illness severity and only considers underlying conditions carrying a greater than 50% predicted likelihood of 1-year mortality. Modifications to the chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, and cirrhosis criteria should be refined if they are to be included in future models.

The Crisis in Standards of Care

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, debates have waged about "crisis standards of care" ("CSC")-the guidelines for the allocation of resources if those resources are too scarce to meet the needs of all patients. The Hastings Center Report's September-October 2021 issue features a collection of pieces on this debate. In the lead article, MaryKatherine Gaurke and colleagues object to the idea that the allocation of scarce resources should aim to save the most "life-years," arguing instead that the objective should be to save the most lives. Gaurke et al. assert that it is only theorists who have favored the life-years strategy; the public has not-or at least, there is no good evidence that the public has. This claim is elaborated in the article by Alex Rajczi and colleagues, who argue that identifying and applying the public's will-a process they call "political reasoning"-is the core work in developing CSC. Five commentaries-two coauthored, by Douglas B. White and Bernardo Lo and by Anuj B. Mehta and Matthew K. Wynia, and three solo authored, by Govind Persad, Virginia A. Brown, and Robert D. Truog-offer further arguments about and insights into CSC.

Ventilator Allocation Protocols: Sophisticated Bioethics for an Unworkable Strategy

I was a member of the Massachusetts advisory working group that wrote the Commonwealth's crisis standards of care guidance for the Covid‐19 pandemic, and I was proud of the work we did, thinking carefully about whether age should matter and whether priority should be given to essential workers if there was a scarcity of medical resources, about whether protocols should address issues of structural racism, and so forth. But as a critical care physician, I have concluded that, no matter how sophisticated the ethical analysis, the fundamental approach we proposed was flawed and virtually impossible to implement. All the existing allocation protocols that states developed are based on the assumption that clinicians will be faced with the task of selecting which patients will be offered a ventilator from among a population of patients who are each in need of one. The protocols then assign patients a priority category, and the protocols specify “tie‐breaking” criteria to be used when necessary. The problem with this approach for ventilator allocation is that it has no relationship whatsoever to what happens in the real world.

The University of California Crisis Standards of Care: Public Reasoning for Socially Responsible Medicine

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the University of California convened the University of California Critical Care Bioethics Working Group, a team of twenty individuals tasked with developing a set of triage procedures. This article highlights several crucial components of the UC procedures and describes the reasoning behind them. The recommendations and the reasoning in the UC protocol are distinctive because of the emphasis the working group placed on grounding its decisions on the public's preferences for triage protocols. To highlight the distinctiveness of the recommendations and reasoning, this article contrasts the UC procedures with the triage procedures known as the "Pittsburgh framework." Among the specific topics discussed are age discrimination, disability discrimination, the prioritization of critical workers for scarce resources, and triage priority for pregnant patients.

Rationing With Respect to Age During a Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis of State Pandemic Preparedness Plans

BACKGROUND

Faced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration.

RESULTS

Thirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy.

INTERPRETATION

Guidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.

Applying crisis standards of care to critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does race/ethnicity affect triage scoring?

OBJECTIVE

Given the variability in crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated the racial and ethnic differences in prioritization between 3 different CSC triage policies (New York, Massachusetts, USA), as well as a first come, first served (FCFS) approach, using a single patient population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with intensive care unit (ICU) needs at a tertiary hospital on its peak COVID-19 ICU census day. We used medical record data to calculate a CSC score under 3 criteria: New York, Massachusetts with full comorbidity list (Massachusetts1), and MA with a modified comorbidity list (Massachusetts2). The CSC scores, as well as FCFS, determined which patients were eligible to receive critical care under 2 scarcity scenarios: 50 versus 100 ICU bed capacity. We assessed the association between race/ethnicity and eligibility for critical care with logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 211 patients, 139 (66%) were male, 95 (45%) were Hispanic, 23 (11%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 69 (33%) were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic patients had the fewest comorbidities. Assuming a 50 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had significantly higher odds of receiving critical care services across all CSC guidelines, except FCFS. However, assuming a 100 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had greater odds of receiving critical care services under only the Massachusetts2 guidelines (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.85).

CONCLUSION

Varying CSC guidelines differentially affect racial and ethnic minority groups with regard to risk stratification. The equity implications of CSC guidelines require thorough investigation before CSC guidelines are implemented.

Performance of Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines in a Cohort of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients in the United States

Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing their population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation drawn from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID) multicenter cohort, we test the following three approaches to CSC algorithms: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We find that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to white patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities.

Crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines have poor prediction of 28-day mortality

Consideration of comorbidities modestly improves guideline performance

Simulation of clinical decision-making shows frequent ties in priority scores

Using comorbidities in CSC has the potential to exacerbate racial inequities

Emergency Physician Twitter Use in the COVID-19 Pandemic as a Potential Predictor of Impending Surge: Retrospective Observational Study

Background

The early conversations on social media by emergency physicians offer a window into the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective

This retrospective observational study of emergency physician Twitter use details how the health care crisis has influenced emergency physician discourse online and how this discourse may have use as a harbinger of ensuing surge.

Methods

Followers of the three main emergency physician professional organizations were identified using Twitter’s application programming interface. They and their followers were included in the study if they identified explicitly as US-based emergency physicians. Statuses, or tweets, were obtained between January 4, 2020, when the new disease was first reported, and December 14, 2020, when vaccination first began. Original tweets underwent sentiment analysis using the previously validated Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner (VADER) tool as well as topic modeling using latent Dirichlet allocation unsupervised machine learning. Sentiment and topic trends were then correlated with daily change in new COVID-19 cases and inpatient bed utilization.

Results

A total of 3463 emergency physicians produced 334,747 unique English-language tweets during the study period. Out of 3463 participants, 910 (26.3%) stated that they were in training, and 466 of 902 (51.7%) participants who provided their gender identified as men. Overall tweet volume went from a pre-March 2020 mean of 481.9 (SD 72.7) daily tweets to a mean of 1065.5 (SD 257.3) daily tweets thereafter. Parameter and topic number tuning led to 20 tweet topics, with a topic coherence of 0.49. Except for a week in June and 4 days in November, discourse was dominated by the health care system (45,570/334,747, 13.6%). Discussion of pandemic response, epidemiology, and clinical care were jointly found to moderately correlate with COVID-19 hospital bed utilization (Pearson r=0.41), as was the occurrence of “covid,” “coronavirus,” or “pandemic” in tweet texts (r=0.47). Momentum in COVID-19 tweets, as demonstrated by a sustained crossing of 7- and 28-day moving averages, was found to have occurred on an average of 45.0 (SD 12.7) days before peak COVID-19 hospital bed utilization across the country and in the four most contributory states.

Conclusions

COVID-19 Twitter discussion among emergency physicians correlates with and may precede the rising of hospital burden. This study, therefore, begins to depict the extent to which the ongoing pandemic has affected the field of emergency medicine discourse online and suggests a potential avenue for understanding predictors of surge.

Ruthless Utilitarianism? COVID-19 State Triage Protocols May Subject Patients to Racial Discrimination and Providers to Legal Liability

As the coronavirus pandemic intensified, many communities in the United States experienced shortages of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other medical supplies and treatments. Currently, there is no single national response to provide guidance on allocation of scarce health care resources. Accordingly, states have formulated various "triage protocols" to prioritize those who will receive care and those who may not have the same access to health care services when the population demand exceeds the supply. Triage protocols address general concepts of "fairness" under accepted medical ethics rules and the consensus is that limited medical resources "should be allocated to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people."1 The actual utility of this utilitarian ethics approach is questionable, however, leaving many questions about what is "fair" unanswered. Saving as many people as possible during a health care crisis is a laudable goal but not at the expense of ignoring patients's legal rights, which are not suspended during the crisis. This Article examines the triage protocols from six states to determine whose rights are being recognized and whose rights are being denied, answering the pivotal question: If there is potential for disparate impact of facially neutral state triage protocols against Black Americans and other ethnic groups, is this legally actionable discrimination? This may be a case of first impression for the courts to resolve."[B]lack Americans are 3.5 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than [W]hite Americans … . Latinx people are almost twice as likely to die of the disease, compared with [W]hite people." 2 "Our civil rights laws protect the equal dignity of every human life from ruthless utilitarianism … . HHS is committed to leaving no one behind during an emergency, and this guidance is designed to help health care providers meet that goal." - Roger Severino, Office of Civil Rights Director, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3.

Existing Crisis Standards of Care Triage Protocols May Not Significantly Differentiate Between Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Who Require Intensive Care

Objectives

To determine how several existing crisis standards of care triage protocols would have distinguished between patients with coronavirus disease 2019 requiring intensive care.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Single urban academic medical center.

Patients

One-hundred twenty patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who required intensive care and mechanical ventilation.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and Main Results

The characteristics of each patient at the time of ICU triage were used to determine how patients would have been prioritized using four crisis standards of care protocols. The vast majority of patients in the cohort would have been in the highest priority group using a triage protocol focusing on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment alone. Prioritization based on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and 1-year life expectancy would have resulted in only slightly more differentiation between patients. Prioritization based on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and 5-year life expectancy would have added significant additional differentiation depending on how priority groups were defined.

Conclusions

There is considerable controversy regarding the use of criteria other than prognosis for short-term survival in initial allocation of critical care resources under crisis standards of care triage protocols. To the extent that initial triage protocols would not create sufficient differentiation between patients, effectively resulting in a first-come, first-served initial allocation of resources, it is important to focus on how resources would be reallocated in the event of ongoing scarcity.

Crisis standards of care in a pandemic: navigating the ethical, clinical, psychological and policy-making maelstrom

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused clinicians at the frontlines to confront difficult decisions regarding resource allocation, treatment options, and ultimately the life-saving measures that must be taken at the point of care. This article addresses the importance of enacting Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) as a policy mechanism to facilitate the shift to population-based medicine. In times of emergencies and crises such as this pandemic, the enactment of CSC enables concrete decisions to be made by governments relating to supply chains, resource allocation, and provision of care to maximize societal benefit. This shift from an individual to a population-based societal focus has profound consequences on how clinical decisions are made at the point of care. Failing to enact CSC may have psychological impacts for healthcare providers particularly related to moral distress, through an inability to fully enact individual beliefs (individually-focused clinical decisions) which form their moral compass.

Clinical informatics accelerates health system adaptation to the COVID-19 pandemic: examples from Colorado

OBJECTIVE

Large health systems responding to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic face a broad range of challenges; we describe 14 examples of innovative and effective informatics interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A team of 30 physician and 17 nurse informaticists with an electronic health record (EHR) and associated informatics tools.

RESULTS

To meet the demands posed by the influx of patients with COVID-19 into the health system, the team built solutions to accomplish the following goals: 1) train physicians and nurses quickly to manage a potential surge of hospital patients; 2) build and adjust interactive visual pathways to guide decisions; 3) scale up video visits and teach best-practice communication; 4) use tablets and remote monitors to improve in-hospital and posthospital patient connections; 5) allow hundreds of physicians to build rapid consensus; 6) improve the use of advance care planning; 7) keep clinicians aware of patients' changing COVID-19 status; 8) connect nurses and families in new ways; 9) semi-automate Crisis Standards of Care; and 10) predict future hospitalizations.

DISCUSSION

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UCHealth Joint Informatics Group applied a strategy of "practical informatics" to rapidly translate critical leadership decisions into understandable guidance and effective tools for patient care.

CONCLUSION

Informatics-trained physicians and nurses drew upon their trusted relationships with multiple teams within the organization to create practical solutions for onboarding, clinical decision-making, telehealth, and predictive analytics.

When Is Age Choosing Ageist Discrimination?

When the Covid-19 pandemic reached the United States in spring 2020, many states and hospitals announced crisis standards of care plans that used age as a categorical exclusion criterion. Such age choosing was quickly flagged as discriminatory, and so some states and hospitals shifted to embedding age as a tiebreaker deeper in their plans. Different rationales were given for using age as a tiebreaker: that younger patients were more likely to survive than older patients, that saving younger patients would save more life years, and that younger patients deserved a chance to live through life's stages. We provide a critical analysis of these three rationales, noting the differences between them, and then questioning the ethical and legal justifications for such age choosing.

State Preparedness for Crisis Standards of Care in the United States: Implications for Emergency Management

State governments and hospital facilities are often unprepared to handle a complex medical crisis, despite a moral and ethical obligation to be prepared for disaster. The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has drawn attention to the lack of state guidance on how hospitals should provide care in a crisis. When the resources available are insufficient to treat the current patient load, crisis standards of care (CSC) are implemented to provide care to the population in an ethical manner, while maintaining an ability to handle the surge. This Editorial aims to raise awareness concerning a lack of preparedness that calls for immediate correction at the state and local level.Analysis of state guidelines for implementation of CSC demonstrates a lack of preparedness, as only five states in the US have appropriately completed necessary plans, despite a clear understanding of the danger. States have a legal responsibility to regulate the medical care within their borders. Failure of hospital facilities to properly prepare for disasters is not a new issue; Hurricane Katrina (2005) demonstrated a lack of planning and coordination. Improving disaster health care readiness in the United States requires states to create new policy and legislative directives for the health care facilities within their respective jurisdictions. Hospitals should have clear directives to prepare for disasters as part of a "duty to care" and to ensure that the necessary planning and supplies are available to their employees.

Disability Rights as a Necessary Framework for Crisis Standards of Care and the Future of Health Care

In this essay, we suggest practical ways to shift the framing of crisis standards of care toward disability justice. We elaborate on the vision statement provided in the 2010 Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Medicine) "Summary of Guidance for Establishing Crisis Standards of Care for Use in Disaster Situations," which emphasizes fairness; equitable processes; community and provider engagement, education, and communication; and the rule of law. We argue that interpreting these elements through disability justice entails a commitment to both distributive and recognitive justice. The disability rights movement's demand "Nothing about us, without us" requires substantive inclusion of disabled people in decision-making related to their interests, including in crisis planning before, during, and after a pandemic like Covid-19.

Covid-19: Ethical Challenges for Nurses

The Covid‐19 pandemic has highlighted many of the difficult ethical issues that health care professionals confront in caring for patients and families. The decisions such workers face on the front lines are fraught with uncertainty for all stakeholders. Our focus is on the implications for nurses, who are the largest global health care workforce but whose perspectives are not always fully considered. This essay discusses three overarching ethical issues that create a myriad of concerns and will likely affect nurses globally in unique ways: the safety of nurses, patients, colleagues, and families; the allocation of scarce resources; and the changing nature of nurses’ relationships with patients and families. We urge policy‐makers to ensure that nurses’ voices and perspectives are integrated into both local and global decision‐making so as to minimize the structural injustices many nurses have faced to date. Finally, we urge nurses to seek sources of support throughout this pandemic.

Responding to Covid-19: How to Navigate a Public Health Emergency Legally and Ethically

Few novel or emerging infectious diseases have posed such vital ethical challenges so quickly and dramatically as the novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern and recently classified Covid‐19 as a worldwide pandemic. As of this writing, the epidemic has not yet peaked in the United States, but community transmission is widespread. President Trump declared a national emergency as fifty governors declared state emergencies. In the coming weeks, hospitals will become overrun, stretched to their capacities. When the health system becomes stretched beyond capacity, how can we ethically allocate scarce health goods and services? How can we ensure that marginalized populations can access the care they need? What ethical duties do we owe to vulnerable people separated from their families and communities? And how do we ethically and legally balance public health with civil liberties?

How to Choose? Using the Delphi Method to Develop Consensus Triggers and Indicators for Disaster Response

OBJECTIVE

To identify key decisions along the continuum of care (conventional, contingency, and crisis) and the critical triggers and data elements used to inform those decisions concerning public health and health care response during an emergency.

METHODS

A classic Delphi method, a consensus-building survey technique, was used with clinicians around Washington State to identify regional triggers and indicators. Additionally, using a modified Delphi method, we combined a workshop and single-round survey with panelists from public health (state and local) and health care coalitions to identify consensus state-level triggers and indicators.

RESULTS

In the clinical survey, 122 of 223 proposed triggers or indicators (43.7%) reached consensus and were deemed important in regional decision-making during a disaster. In the state-level survey, 110 of 140 proposed triggers or indicators (78.6%) reached consensus and were deemed important in state-level decision-making during a disaster.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of consensus triggers and indicators for health care emergency response is crucial in supporting a comprehensive health care situational awareness process. This can inform the creation of standardized questions to ask health care, public health, and other partners to support decision-making during a response. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:467-472).