Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., (© 2021 The Hastings Center.)

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. To our knowledge, no prior analysis has assessed this plan development process, including whether plans were successfully adopted. 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? Plan authors and state leaders completed a semistructured 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. 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 will to adopt a plan and development during a public health emergency. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A priority system has traditionally been the protocol of choice for the allocation of scarce life-saving resources during public health emergencies. COVID-19 revealed the limitations of this allocation rule. Many argue that priority systems abandon ethical values, such as equity, by discriminating against disadvantaged communities. We show that a restrictive feature of the traditional priority system largely drives these limitations. Following minimalist market design, an institution design paradigm that integrates research and policy efforts, we formulate pandemic allocation of scarce life-saving resources as a new application of market design. Interfering only with the restrictive feature of the priority system to address its shortcomings, we formulate a reserve system as an alternative allocation rule. Our theoretical analysis develops a general theory of reserve design. We relate our analysis to debates during COVID-19 and describe the impact of our paper on policy and practice. This paper was accepted by Axel Ockenfels, behavioral economics and decision analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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. 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. Our proposed ethical norms should help future physicians make morally challenging choices during pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In most jurisdictions, disaster triage under CSC is conducted by triage teams who are similarly removed from direct patient care. Keywords: COVID-19; crisis standards of care; disaster; ethics; triage EN COVID-19 crisis standards of care disaster ethics triage 1824 1827 4 11/21/22 20221201 NES 221201 The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed health systems around the world to an unprecedented degree. Unfortunately, although changes in SOFA over time appear to be predictive of outcomes in a general critical care population ([9]), analyses in patients with COVID-19 do not support the prognostic value of serial SOFA measurements ([10]). [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: COVID-19; crisis standards of care; disaster; intensive care unit preparedness; surge; triage EN COVID-19 crisis standards of care disaster intensive care unit preparedness surge triage 148 150 3 12/19/22 20230101 NES 230101 In mid-2001, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in conjunction with the National Security Council of the United States engaged in a table-top exercise to inform debate on the threat posed by biologic agents and to simulate challenges in decision making during times of healthcare strain. In this case, the system described for access to an ICU bed applied only to patients with COVID-19, and there were significant numbers of non-COVID-19 patients competing for the same beds. During the study period, patients were assigned to one of three color-coded ICU admission priority groups based on age, comorbidities, and disease severity: green - ICU admission as soon as possible; orange - admission after all patients in green were admitted; and red - no ICU admission. [Extracted from the article]

Summary: 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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]