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.

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).

Ageism in the COVID-19 pandemic: age-based discrimination in triage decisions and beyond.

Ageism has unfortunately become a salient phenomenon during the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, triage decisions based on age have been hotly discussed. In this article, I first defend that, although there are ethical reasons (founded on the principles of benefit and fairness) to consider the age of patients in triage dilemmas, using age as a categorical exclusion is an unjustifiable ageist practice. Then, I argue that ageism during the pandemic has been fueled by media narratives and unfair assumptions which have led to an ethically problematic group homogenization of the older population. Finally, I conclude that an intersectional perspective can shed light on further controversies on ageism and triage in the post-pandemic future.

A mixed-methods study describing behavioral factors that influenced general practitioners' experiences using triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, general practices were asked to expand triage and to reduce unnecessary face-to-face contact by prioritizing other consultation modes, e.g., online messaging, video, or telephone. The current study explores the potential barriers and facilitators general practitioners experienced to expanding triage systems and their attitudes towards triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A mixed-method study design was used in which a quantitative online survey was conducted along with qualitative interviews to gain a more nuanced appreciation for practitioners' experiences in the United Kingdom. The survey items were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework so they would capture 14 behavioral factors that may influence whether practitioners use triage systems. Items were responded to using seven-point Likert scales. A median score was calculated for each item. The responses of participants identifying as part-owners and non-owners (i.e., "partner" vs. "non-partner" practitioners) were compared. The semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely and examined using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 204 participants (66% Female). Most participants (83%) reported triaging patients. The items with the highest median scores captured the 'Knowledge,' 'Skills,' 'Social/Professional role and identity,' and 'Beliefs about capabilities' domains. The items with the lowest median scores captured the 'Beliefs about consequences,' 'Goals,' and 'Emotions' domains. For 14 of the 17 items, partner scores were higher than non-partner scores. All the qualitative interview participants relied on a phone triage system. Six broad themes were discovered: patient accessibility, confusions around what triage is, uncertainty and risk, relationships between service providers, job satisfaction, and the potential for total digital triage. Suggestions arose to optimize triage, such as ensuring there is sufficient time to conduct triage accurately and providing practical training to use triage efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: Many general practitioners are engaging with expanded triage systems, though more support is needed to achieve total triage across practices. Non-partner practitioners likely require more support to use the triage systems that practices take up. Additionally, practical support should be made available to help all practitioners manage the new risks and uncertainties they are likely to experience during non-face-to-face consultations.

Allocation of Respirators in the Coronavirus Crisis in Israel: An Ethical Analysis and A Scheme for Triage.

BACKGROUND: This focus article is a theoretical reflection on the ethics of allocating respirators to patients in circumstances of shortage, especially during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Israel. In this article, respirators are placeholders for similar life-saving modalities in short supply, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines and intensive care unit beds. In the article, I propose a system of triage for circumstances of scarcity of respirators. The system separates the hopeless from the curable, granting every treatable person a real chance of cure. The scarcity situation eliminates excesses of medicine, and then allocates respirators by a single scale, combining an evidence-based scoring system with risk-proportionate lottery. The triage proposed embodies continuity and consistency with the healthcare practices in ordinary times. Yet, I suggest two regulatory modifications: one in relation to expediting review of novel and makeshift solutions and the second in relation to mandatory retrospective research on all relevant medical data and standard (as opposed to experimental) interventions that are influenced by the triage.

Ethics of ICU triage during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has placed intensive care units (ICU) triage at the center of bioethical discussions. National and international triage guidelines emerged from professional and governmental bodies and have led to controversial discussions about which criteria-e.g. medical prognosis, age, life-expectancy or quality of life-are ethically acceptable. The paper presents the main points of agreement and disagreement in triage protocols and reviews the ethical debate surrounding them. SOURCES OF DATA: Published articles, news articles, book chapters, ICU triage guidelines set out by professional societies and health authorities. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Points of agreement in the guidelines that are widely supported by ethical arguments are (i) to avoid using a first come, first served policy or quality-adjusted life-years and (ii) to rely on medical prognosis, maximizing lives saved, justice as fairness and non-discrimination. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Points of disagreement in existing guidelines and the ethics literature more broadly regard the use of exclusion criteria, the role of life expectancy, the prioritization of healthcare workers and the reassessment of triage decisions. GROWING POINTS: Improve outcome predictions, possibly aided by Artificial intelligence (AI); develop participatory approaches to drafting, assessing and revising triaging protocols; learn from experiences with implementation of guidelines with a view to continuously improve decision-making. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Examine the universality vs. context-dependence of triaging principles and criteria; empirically test the appropriateness of triaging guidelines, including impact on vulnerable groups and risk of discrimination; study the potential and challenges of AI for outcome and preference prediction and decision-support.

COVID-19 Pandemic Healthcare Resource Allocation, Age and Frailty.

The current coronavirus pandemic presents the greatest healthcare crisis in living memory. Hospitals across the world have faced unprecedented pressure. In the face of this tidal wave of demand for limited healthcare resources, how are clinicians to identify patients most likely to benefit? Should age or frailty be discriminators? This paper seeks to analyse the current evidence-base, seeking a nuanced approach to pandemic decision-making, such as admission to critical care.

Incorporating Stakeholder Perspectives on Scarce Resource Allocation: Lessons Learned from Policymaking in a Time of Crisis.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis provoked an organizational ethics dilemma: how to develop ethical pandemic policy while upholding our organizational mission to deliver relationship- and patient-centered care. Tasked with producing a recommendation about whether healthcare workers and essential personnel should receive priority access to limited medical resources during the pandemic, the bioethics department and survey and interview methodologists at our institution implemented a deliberative approach that included the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patient stakeholders in the policy development process. Involving the community more, not less, during a crisis required balancing the need to act quickly to garner stakeholder perspectives, uncertainty about the extent and duration of the pandemic, and disagreement among ethicists about the most ethically supportable way to allocate scarce resources. This article explains the process undertaken to garner stakeholder input as it relates to organizational ethics, recounts the stakeholder perspectives shared and how they informed the triage policy developed, and offers suggestions for how other organizations may integrate stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making as well as directions for future research and public health work.

A Journal of the COVID-19 (Plague) Year.

The essays in this special issue of HEC Forum provide reflections that make explicit the implicit anthropology that our current pandemic has brought but which in the medical ethics literature around COVID-19 has to a great extent ignored. Three of the essays are clearly "journalistic" as a literary genre: one by a hospital chaplain, one by a medical student in her pre-clinical years, and one by a fourth-year medical student who reports her experience as she completed her undergraduate clerkships and applied for positions in graduate medical education. Other essays explore the pandemic from historical, sociological, and economic perspectives, particularly how triage policies have been found to be largely blind to structural healthcare disparities, while simultaneously unable to appropriately address those disparities. Central issues that need to be addressed in triage are not just whether a utilitarian response is the most just response, but what exactly is the greatest good for the greatest number? Together, the essays in this special issue of HEC Forum create a call for a more anthropological approach to understanding health and healthcare. The narrow approach of viewing health as resulting primarily from healthcare will continue to hinder advances and perpetuate disparities. Health outcomes result from a complex interaction of various social, economic, cultural, historical, and political factors. Advancing healthcare requires contextualizing the health of populations amongst these factors. The COVID-19 pandemic has made us keenly aware of how interdependent our health as a society can be.

Prioritising 'already-scarce' intensive care unit resources in the midst of COVID-19: a call for regional triage committees in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: The worsening COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa poses multiple challenges for clinical decision making in the context of already-scarce ICU resources. Data from national government and the last published national audit of ICU resources indicate gross shortages. While the Critical Care Society of Southern Africa (CCSSA) guidelines provide a comprehensive guideline for triage in the face of overwhelmed ICU resources, such decisions present massive ethical and moral dilemmas for triage teams. It is therefore important for the health system to provide clinicians and critical care facilities with as much support and resources as possible in the face of impending pandemic demand. Following a discussion of the ethical considerations and potential challenges in applying the CCSSA guidelines, the authors propose a framework for regional triage committees adapted to the South African context. DISCUSSION: Beyond the national CCSSA guidelines, the clinician has many additional ethical and clinical considerations. No single ethical approach to decision-making is sufficient, instead one which considers multiple contextual factors is necessary. Scores such as the Clinical Frailty Score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment are of limited use in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, the clinician is fully justified in withdrawing ICU care based on medical futility decisions and to reallocate this resource to a patient with a better prognosis. However, these decisions bear heavy emotional and moral burden compounded by the volume of clinical work and a fear of litigation. CONCLUSION: We propose the formation of Provincial multi-disciplinary Critical Care Triage Committees to alleviate the emotional, moral and legal burden on individual ICU teams and co-ordinate inter-facility collaboration using an adapted framework. The committee would provide an impartial, broader and ethically-sound viewpoint which has time to consider broader contextual factors such as adjusting rationing criteria according to different levels of pandemic demand and the latest clinical evidence. Their functioning will be strengthened by direct feedback to national level and accountability to a national monitoring committee. The potential applications of these committees are far-reaching and have the potential to enable a more effective COVID-19 health systems response in South Africa.

A consequentialist argument for considering age in triage decisions during the coronavirus pandemic.

Most ethics guidelines for distributing scarce medical resources during the coronavirus pandemic seek to save the most lives and the most life-years. A patient's prognosis is determined using a SOFA or MSOFA score to measure likelihood of survival to discharge, as well as a consideration of relevant comorbidities and their effects on likelihood of survival up to one or five years. Although some guidelines use age as a tiebreaker when two patients' prognoses are identical, others refuse to consider age for fear of discriminating against the elderly. In this paper, I argue that age is directly relevant for maximizing health benefits, so current ethics guidelines are wrongly excluding or deemphasizing life-stage in their triage algorithms. Research on COVID-19 has shown that age is a risk factor in adverse outcomes, independent of comorbidities. And limiting a consideration of life-years to only one or five years past discharge does not maximize health benefits. Therefore, based on their own stated values, triage algorithms for coronavirus patients ought to include life-stage as a primary consideration, along with the SOFA score and comorbidities, rather than excluding it or using it merely as a tiebreaker. This is not discriminatory because patients ought to have equal opportunity to experience life-stages. The equitable enforcement of that right justifies unequal treatment based on age in cases when there is a scarcity of life-saving resources. A consideration of life-stage would thus allow healthcare workers to responsibly steward public resources in order to maximize lives and life-years saved.

Medical Triage During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Medical and Ethical Burden.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients who require intensive care treatment may outnumber the number of intensive care beds, even in industrialized nations. Consequently, triage may become necessary. In Italy, France, and Spain, age has been used as a leading parameter to decide who is admitted to the intensive care unit, and who receives palliative care. Although age is an objective and easy-to-use parameter, it is ethically not ideal to withdraw ventilator therapy from elderly people who suffer from COVID-19. We have developed a simple and easy-to-use scoring system to allow for triage that is based upon scientific outcome data and, at the same time, fulfills ethical standards.

When Scarcity Meets Disparity: "Resources Allocation and COVID-19 Patients with Diabetes".

The COVID-19 pandemic raised distinct challenges in the field of scarce resource allocation, a long-standing area of inquiry in the field of bioethics. Policymakers and states developed crisis guidelines for ventilator triage that incorporated such factors as immediate prognosis, long-term life expectancy, and current stage of life. Often these depend upon existing risk factors for severe illness, including diabetes. However, these algorithms generally failed to account for the underlying structural biases, including systematic racism and economic disparity, that rendered some patients more vulnerable to these conditions. This paper discusses this unique ethical challenge in resource allocation through the lens of care for patients with severe COVID-19 and diabetes.

Guidance for Medical Ethicists to Enhance Social Cooperation to Mitigate the Pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic has presented major challenges to society, exposing preexisting ethical weaknesses in the modern social fabric's ability to respond. Distrust in government and a lessened authority of science to determine facts have both been exacerbated by the polarization and disinformation enhanced by social media. These have impaired society's willingness to comply with and persevere with social distancing, which has been the most powerful initial response to mitigate the pandemic. These preexisting weaknesses also threaten the future acceptance of vaccination and contact tracing, two other tools needed to combat epidemics. Medical ethicists might best help in this situation by promoting truth-telling, encouraging the rational adjudication of facts, providing transparent decision-making and advocating the virtue of cooperation to maximize the common good. Those interventions should be aimed at the social level. The same elements of emphasizing cooperation and beneficence also apply to the design of triage protocols for when resources are overwhelmed. A life-stages approach increases beneficence and reduces harms. Triage should be kept as simple and straightforward as reasonably possible to avoid unwieldly application during a pandemic.

Pandemic ICU triage challenge and medical ethics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made unprecedented global demands on healthcare in general and especially the intensive care unit (ICU). the virus is spreading out of control. To this day, there is no clear, published directive for doctors regarding the allocation of ICU beds in times of scarcity. This means that many doctors do not feel supported by their government and are afraid of the medicolegal consequences of the choices they have to make. Consequently, there has been no transparent discussion among professionals and the public. The thought of being at the mercy of absolute arbitrariness leads to fear among the population, especially the vulnerable groups.

The Value of Triage during Periods of Intense COVID-19 Demand: Simulation Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units have been overwhelmed by unprecedented levels of demand. Notwithstanding ethical considerations, the prioritization of patients with better prognoses may support a more effective use of available capacity in maximizing aggregate outcomes. This has prompted various proposed triage criteria, although in none of these has an objective assessment been made in terms of impact on number of lives and life-years saved. DESIGN: An open-source computer simulation model was constructed for approximating the intensive care admission and discharge dynamics under triage. The model was calibrated from observational data for 9505 patient admissions to UK intensive care units. To explore triage efficacy under various conditions, scenario analysis was performed using a range of demand trajectories corresponding to differing nonpharmaceutical interventions. RESULTS: Triaging patients at the point of expressed demand had negligible effect on deaths but reduces life-years lost by up to 8.4% (95% confidence interval: 2.6% to 18.7%). Greater value may be possible through "reverse triage", that is, promptly discharging any patient not meeting the criteria if admission cannot otherwise be guaranteed for one who does. Under such policy, life-years lost can be reduced by 11.7% (2.8% to 25.8%), which represents 23.0% (5.4% to 50.1%) of what is operationally feasible with no limit on capacity and in the absence of improved clinical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of simple triage is limited by a tradeoff between reduced deaths within intensive care (due to improved outcomes) and increased deaths resulting from declined admission (due to lower throughput given the longer lengths of stay of survivors). Improvements can be found through reverse triage, at the expense of potentially complex ethical considerations.

El triaje en pandemia: fundamentos éticos para la asignación de recursos de soporte vital avanzado en escenarios de escasez / Pandemic triage: ethical foundations for the allocation of advanced life support resources in scarcity scenario

Las pandemias y otras catástrofes de alto impacto sanitario azotan periódicamente a la humanidad, aumentando desproporcionadamente la demanda por atención en servicios de urgencia, unidades de cuidados intensivos y medios de soporte vital avanzado. Este desequilibrio obliga a una compleja toma de decisiones en que se deben asignar recursos proporcionalmente escasos en relación a una gran demanda. Así, los equipos clínicos asistenciales necesitan actuar bajo criterios consensuados, que orienten sus decisiones y alivien la pesada carga moral de seleccionar pacientes para terapias, en detrimento de otros. El triaje es una estrategia que permite establecer, bajo racionalidades propias a cada escenario, objetivos y criterios que faciliten la toma de decisiones complejas para el logro del mejor resultado. Estas estrategias deben considerar el marco de valores intangibles que apreciamos y que nos identifican cultural y socialmente, como son el respeto a la vida, la igualdad, la justicia y la libertad. Sin embargo, en escenarios excepcionales como el de la actual pandemia COVID-19, en que el sistema sanitario puede no dar abasto, deberán establecerse objetivos prioritarios, como salvar la mayor cantidad de vidas, del modo más humano, justo y eficiente posible. A la vez, deberán redefinirse jerarquías en los valores y principios clásicos de la práctica clínica cotidiana, adecuadas a la catástrofe sanitaria, bajo una ética propia de la salud pública, el mayor bien para la mayoría y el mejor cuidado de los que no pueden ser curados.

Pandemics and other global disasters regularly overwhelm humankind. These catastrophic events suddenly increase demand for health-care in emergency services, intensive care units, and for advanced life support devices. This imbalance requires complex decision-making in which scarce resources must be allocated in relation to high demand. Thus, health-care teams need to act under consensus criteria that guide their decisions and alleviate the heavy moral burden of selecting patients for therapies, excluding others. Triage is a strategy that allows to establish, under appropriate rationalities, objectives and criteria that facilitate complex decisions to achieve the best results. These strategies should consider the framework of intangible values that we appreciate and identify us culturally and socially, such as respect for life, equity, justice and freedom. However, in exceptional scenarios such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, where the health system may be overcome, priority goals should focus in order to save as many lives as possible and by mean the most humane, fair and efficient way possible. At the same time, hierarchies of classical values and principles of daily clinical practice should be redefined in an appropriate way to face this catastrophic scenario, under an ethics for public health, the greatest good for the most and the best care of those who cannot be cured.