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.

Decision-Making for Hospitalized Incarcerated Patients Lacking Decisional Capacity.

Importance: Incarcerated patients admitted to the hospital face threats to their rights to privacy and self-determination in medical decision-making. Little is known about medical decision-making processes for hospitalized incarcerated persons who lack decisional capacity. Objective: To characterize the prevalence of incapacity among hospitalized incarcerated patients and describe the decision-making processes, including who served as surrogate decision-makers, involvement of prison employees in medical decisions, and ethical concerns emerging from the patients' care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective descriptive and qualitative study of medical records for all patients admitted from prison for at least 24 hours between January 1, 1999, and September 1, 2019, at a large Midwestern academic medical center. Data analysis was performed from March 15, 2021, to December 14, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of prison-to-hospital admissions for patients with a loss of capacity and characteristics of medical decision-making. Results: During the 20-year study period, 462 patients from the prison were admitted to the hospital, totaling 967 unique admissions. Of these, 131 admissions (14%) involved patients with a loss of capacity and 43 admissions (4%, representing 34 unique patients) required surrogate decision-making. Ten of these patients had advance directives. Surrogate decision-makers often faced decisions about end-of-life care (n = 17) or procedural consent (n = 23). A family member was identified as surrogate decision-maker in 23 admissions. In 6 cases with a kindred surrogate, additional consent was requested from a prison employee. In total, prison employees were documented as being present during or participating in major medical decisions for half of the admissions. Five themes emerged from thematic analysis: uncertainty and misinformation about patient rights and the role of prison employees in medical decision-making with respect to these two themes, privacy violations, deference to prison officials, and estrangement from family and friends outside of the prison. Conclusions and Relevance: In this first in-depth description, to date, of decision-making practices for hospitalized incarcerated patients lacking decisional capacity, admissions of these patients generated uncertainty about their rights, sometimes infringing on patients' privacy and autonomy. Clinicians will encounter incarcerated patients in both hospital and clinic settings and should receive education on how to support ethically and legally sound decision-making practices for this medically vulnerable population.

The Faces of Financial Toxicity: A Qualitative Interview Study of Financial Toxicity in Advanced Cancer Patients in Phase I Oncology Trials.

Objective: To characterize the financial toxicity experienced by advanced cancer patients enrolled in phase I oncology trials. Patients and Methods: We conducted structured interviews with cancer patients participating in phase I clinical trials. Using a thematic analysis approach, we identified recurring themes in patients' experiences of financial toxicity resulting from trial participation. Results: Seven major themes emerged from the interviews: (1) the burden of travel, (2) a willingness to pursue treatment despite financial risk, (3) fear of destitution, (4) financial toxicity equaling physical toxicity, (5) changes in food spending, (6) reluctance to confide in the study investigator about financial toxicity, and (7) difficulty navigating financial aid. These themes highlight the multifaceted financial challenges faced by patients in early phase clinical trials and the need for targeted support services. Conclusion: Our findings underscore the relevance of financial toxicity in the context of phase I clinical trials and provide insights into the diverse challenges faced by advanced cancer patients. These challenges likely augment the disparities seen in trial enrollment for historically marginalized populations. Addressing financial toxicity in this population is crucial for improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Future research should focus on developing effective interventions and support services tailored to the needs of patients in early phase clinical trials.

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.

Academic Physician Specialists' Approaches to Counseling Patients Interested in Unproven Stem Cell and Regenerative Therapies-A Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences, approaches, and challenges of physicians consulting patients about experimental stem cell and regenerative medicine interventions (SCRIs). PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: From August 21, 2018, through July 30, 2019, semistructured interviews of 25 specialists in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology, and neurology were conducted and qualitatively analyzed using modified grounded theory. RESULTS: All specialists used informational approaches to counsel patients, especially orthopedists. Informational approaches included explaining stem cell science, sharing risks, and providing principles. Several specialists also used relational counseling approaches including emphasizing that physicians want what is best for patients, acknowledging suffering, reassuring continued care, empathizing with patients and families, and underscoring that patients have the final decision. Many specialists reported being comfortable with the conversation, although some were less comfortable and several noted challenges in the consultation including wanting to support a patient's decision but worrying about harms from unproven SCRIs, navigating family pressure, and addressing stem cell hype and unrealistic expectations. Specialists also desired that additional resources be available for them and patients. CONCLUSION: Physicians relied more heavily on providing patients with information about SCRIs than using relational counseling approaches. Efforts should be directed at helping physicians address the informational and relational needs of patients, including providing tools and resources that inform physicians about the unproven SCRI industry, building skills in empathic communication, and the creation and dissemination of evidence-based resources to offer patients.

Liver transplantation for acute liver failure in a SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patient.

Current guidelines recommend deferring liver transplantation (LT) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection until clinical improvement occurs and two PCR tests collected at least 24 hours apart are negative. We report a case of an 18-year-old, previously healthy African-American woman diagnosed with COVID-19, who presents with acute liver failure (ALF) requiring urgent LT in the context of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity. The patient was thought to have acute Wilsonian crisis on the basis of hemolytic anemia, alkaline phosphatase:bilirubin ratio <4, AST:ALT ratio >2.2, elevated serum copper, and low uric acid, although an unusual presentation of COVID-19 causing ALF could not be excluded. After meeting criteria for status 1a listing, the patient underwent successful LT, despite ongoing SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity. Remdesivir was given immediately posttransplant, and mycophenolate mofetil was withheld initially and the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test eventually became negative. Three months following transplantation, the patient has made a near-complete recovery. This case highlights that COVID-19 with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity may not be an absolute contraindication for transplantation in ALF. Criteria for patient selection and timing of LT amid the COVID-19 pandemic need to be validated in future studies.

Academic physician specialists' views toward the unproven stem cell intervention industry: areas of common ground and divergence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Premature commercialization of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) has received significant attention within the regenerative medicine community. Patients considering SCIs may encounter misinformation and seek out guidance from their physicians who are trusted brokers of health information. However, little is known about the perspectives of academic physician specialists toward the SCI industry. The purpose of this study was to capture the attitudes of physician specialists with experience addressing patient questions about unproven SCIs. METHODS: The authors undertook 25 semi-structured interviews with academic physicians in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology and neurology primarily from one academic center. RESULTS: The authors identified two major themes: concerns and mediators of appropriateness of offering SCIs as therapies to patients. Specialists were generally aware of the industry and reported scientific and commercial concerns, including the scientific uncertainty of SCIs, medical harms to patients, misleading marketing and its impact on patient informed consent and economic harms due to large out-of-pocket costs for patients. All specialists outside of orthopedics voiced that it was inappropriate to be offering SCIs to patients today. These views were informed by previously expressed concerns surrounding safety and properly informing patients, levels of evidence needed prior to offering SCIs therapeutically and desired qualifications for clinicians. Among the specialties, orthopedists reported that under certain conditions, SCIs may be appropriate for patients with limited clinical options but only when safety is adequate, expectations are managed and patients are well informed about the risks and chances of benefit. Most participants expressed a desire for phase 3 studies and Food and Drug Administration approval prior to marketing SCIs, but some also shared the challenges associated with upholding these thresholds of evidence, especially when caring for out-of-option patients. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results suggest that medical specialists are aware of the industry and express several concerns surrounding SCIs but differ in their views on the appropriateness and clinical evidence necessary for offering SCIs currently to patients. Additional educational tools may help physicians with patient engagement and expectation management surrounding SCIs.

Statutes Governing Default Surrogate Decision Making for Mental Health Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to describe state-to-state variations in the scope of statutory authority granted to default surrogates who decide on mental health treatment for incapacitated patients. METHODS: The authors investigated state statutes delineating the powers of default surrogates to make decisions about mental health treatment. Statutes in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia were identified and analyzed independently by three reviewers. Research was conducted from August 2017 to November 2018 and updated in January 2020. RESULTS: State statutes varied in approaches to default surrogate decision making for mental health treatment. Eight states' statutes delegate broad authority to surrogates, whereas 25 states prohibit surrogates from giving consent for specific therapies. Thirteen states are silent on whether surrogates may make decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity among state statutory laws contributes to complexity of treating patients without decisional capacity. This variability encumbers efforts to support surrogates and clinicians and may contribute to health disparities.

Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.