Triage of Scarce Critical Care Resources in COVID-19 An Implementation Guide for Regional Allocation: An Expert Panel Report of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians.

Public health emergencies have the potential to place enormous strain on health systems. The current pandemic of the novel 2019 coronavirus disease has required hospitals in numerous countries to expand their surge capacity to meet the needs of patients with critical illness. When even surge capacity is exceeded, however, principles of critical care triage may be needed as a means to allocate scarce resources, such as mechanical ventilators or key medications. The goal of a triage system is to direct limited resources towards patients most likely to benefit from them. Implementing a triage system requires careful coordination between clinicians, health systems, local and regional governments, and the public, with a goal of transparency to maintain trust. We discuss the principles of tertiary triage and methods for implementing such a system, emphasizing that these systems should serve only as a last resort. Even under triage, we must uphold our obligation to care for all patients as best possible under difficult circumstances.

Policy impact: When policy fails.

The best policies are evidence-based, providing feasible solutions to healthcare issues to prevent unintended consequences. Nurse researchers need to generate evidence with which to create policy. The obligation to monitor the impact of policies and standards rests on nurse leaders who have the duty to advocate when policies fail. Nurses providing direct care are beholden to report failed policies. Advocacy in the situation of a failed policy often requires moral courage to prevent moral distress amongst the ranks of nurses who enact policies at the intersect of care. In this article, the impact of three healthcare policy issues on nursing end-users will be evaluated: aid in dying, titration of vasoactive medications, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 30-minute rule.

Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. DESIGN: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.

Social justice in pandemic preparedness.

Pandemic influenza planning in the United States violates the demands of social justice in 2 fundamental respects: it embraces the neutrality of procedural justice at the expense of more substantive concern with health disparities, thus perpetuating a predictable and preventable social injustice, and it fails to move beyond lament to practical planning for alleviating barriers to accessing care. A pragmatic social justice approach, addressing both health disparities and access barriers, should inform pandemic preparedness. Achieving social justice goals in pandemic response is challenging, but strategies are available to overcome the obstacles. The public engagement process of one state's pandemic ethics project influenced the development of these strategies.