Mass Critical Care Surge Response During COVID-19: Implementation of Contingency Strategies - A Preliminary Report of Findings From the Task Force for Mass Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: After the publication of a 2014 consensus statement regarding mass critical care during public health emergencies, much has been learned about surge responses and the care of overwhelming numbers of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaps in prior pandemic planning were identified and require modification in the midst of severe ongoing surges throughout the world. RESEARCH QUESTION: A subcommittee from The Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) investigated the most recent COVID-19 publications coupled with TFMCC members anecdotal experience in order to formulate operational strategies to optimize contingency level care, and prevent crisis care circumstances associated with increased mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TFMCC adopted a modified version of established rapid guideline methodologies from the World Health Organization and the Guidelines International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. With a consensus development process incorporating expert opinion to define important questions and extract evidence, the TFMCC developed relevant pandemic surge suggestions in a structured manner, incorporating peer-reviewed literature, "gray" evidence from lay media sources, and anecdotal experiential evidence. RESULTS: Ten suggestions were identified regarding staffing, load-balancing, communication, and technology. Staffing models are suggested with resilience strategies to support critical care staff. ICU surge strategies and strain indicators are suggested to enhance ICU prioritization tactics to maintain contingency level care and to avoid crisis triage, with early transfer strategies to further load-balance care. We suggest that intensivists and hospitalists be engaged with the incident command structure to ensure two-way communication, situational awareness, and the use of technology to support critical care delivery and families of patients in ICUs. INTERPRETATION: A subcommittee from the TFMCC offers interim evidence-informed operational strategies to assist hospitals and communities to plan for and respond to surge capacity demands resulting from COVID-19.

Assessment of Machine Learning to Estimate the Individual Treatment Effect of Corticosteroids in Septic Shock.

Importance: The survival benefit of corticosteroids in septic shock remains uncertain. Objective: To estimate the individual treatment effect (ITE) of corticosteroids in adults with septic shock in intensive care units using machine learning and to evaluate the net benefit of corticosteroids when the decision to treat is based on the individual estimated absolute treatment effect. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used individual patient data from 4 trials on steroid supplementation in adults with septic shock as a training cohort to model the ITE using an ensemble machine learning approach. Data from a double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial comparing hydrocortisone with placebo were used for external validation. Data analysis was conducted from September 2019 to February 2020. Exposures: Intravenous hydrocortisone 50 mg dose every 6 hours for 5 to 7 days with or without enteral 50 µg of fludrocortisone daily for 7 days. The control was either the placebo or usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause 90-day mortality. Results: A total of 2548 participants were included in the development cohort, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 66 (55-76) years and 1656 (65.0%) men. The median (IQR) Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) was 55 [42-69], and median (IQR) Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score on day 1 was 11 (9-13). The crude pooled relative risk (RR) of death at 90 days was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96) in favor of corticosteroids. According to the optimal individual model, the estimated median absolute risk reduction was of 2.90% (95% CI, 2.79% to 3.01%). In the external validation cohort of 75 patients, the area under the curve of the optimal individual model was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.92). For any number willing to treat (NWT; defined as the acceptable number of people to treat to avoid 1 additional outcome considering the risk of harm associated with the treatment) less than 25, the net benefit of treating all patients vs treating nobody was negative. When the NWT was 25, the net benefit was 0.01 for the treat all with hydrocortisone strategy, -0.01 for treat all with hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone strategy, 0.06 for the treat by SAPS II strategy, and 0.31 for the treat by optimal individual model strategy. The net benefit of the SAPS II and the optimal individual model treatment strategies converged to zero for a smaller number willing to treat, but the individual model was consistently superior than model based on the SAPS II score. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that an individualized treatment strategy to decide which patient with septic shock to treat with corticosteroids yielded positive net benefit regardless of potential corticosteroid-associated side effects.

Israeli Position Paper: Triage Decisions for Severely Ill Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Joint Commission of the Israel National Bioethics Council, the Ethics Bureau of the Israel Medical Association and Representatives from the Israeli Ministry of Health.

OBJECTIVES: This document provides an English translation of the Israeli Joint Commission's national guidelines for triaging severely ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Four subcommittees of medical, legal, ethical-social, and religious experts developed the general principles and practical medical criteria for triaging scarce life-saving resources. RESULTS: The guidelines provide an overview of general principles as well as pragmatic medical criteria and a practical triage protocol to be followed should the healthcare system be overwhelmed due to COVID-19. Issues covered include triggers for activating the guidelines, guiding ethical, legal, and religious principles, equity in access, fair distribution, transparency, consistency, palliation, medical policy prioritization, problem-solving mechanisms, and public trust. CONCLUSIONS: The Israeli consensus document and pragmatic medical triage protocol offer a societal and medical roadmap for allocating scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic or other disasters.

Adult ICU Triage During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Who Will Live and Who Will Die? Recommendations to Improve Survival.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients are currently overwhelming the world's healthcare systems. This article provides practical guidance to front-line physicians forced to make critical rationing decisions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Medline search for scientific literature, reviews, and guidance documents related to epidemic ICU triage including from professional bodies. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies, reviews, and guidelines were selected and reviewed by all authors and discussed by internet conference and email. DATA EXTRACTION: References and data were based on relevance and author consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: We review key challenges of resource-driven triage and data from affected ICUs. We recommend that once available resources are maximally extended, triage is justified utilizing a strategy that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of patients. A triage algorithm based on clinical estimations of the incremental survival benefit (saving the most life-years) provided by ICU care is proposed. "First come, first served" is used to choose between individuals with equal priorities and benefits. The algorithm provides practical guidance, is easy to follow, rapidly implementable and flexible. It has four prioritization categories: performance score, ASA score, number of organ failures, and predicted survival. Individual units can readily adapt the algorithm to meet local requirements for the evolving pandemic. Although the algorithm improves consistency and provides practical and psychologic support to those performing triage, the final decision remains a clinical one. Depending on country and operational circumstances, triage decisions may be made by a triage team or individual doctors. However, an experienced critical care specialist physician should be ultimately responsible for the triage decision. Cautious discharge criteria are proposed acknowledging the difficulties to facilitate the admission of queuing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Individual institutions may use this guidance to develop prospective protocols that assist the implementation of triage decisions to ensure fairness, enhance consistency, and decrease provider moral distress.

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.

ICU Admission, Discharge, and Triage Guidelines: A Framework to Enhance Clinical Operations, Development of Institutional Policies, and Further Research.

OBJECTIVES: To update the Society of Critical Care Medicine's guidelines for ICU admission, discharge, and triage, providing a framework for clinical practice, the development of institutional policies, and further research. DESIGN: An appointed Task Force followed a standard, systematic, and evidence-based approach in reviewing the literature to develop these guidelines. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The assessment of the evidence and recommendations was based on the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The general subject was addressed in sections: admission criteria and benefits of different levels of care, triage, discharge timing and strategies, use of outreach programs to supplement ICU care, quality assurance/improvement and metrics, nonbeneficial treatment in the ICU, and rationing considerations. The literature searches yielded 2,404 articles published from January 1998 to October 2013 for review. Following the appraisal of the literature, discussion, and consensus, recommendations were written. CONCLUSION: Although these are administrative guidelines, the subjects addressed encompass complex ethical and medico-legal aspects of patient care that affect daily clinical practice. A limited amount of high-quality evidence made it difficult to answer all the questions asked related to ICU admission, discharge, and triage. Despite these limitations, the members of the Task Force believe that these recommendations provide a comprehensive framework to guide practitioners in making informed decisions during the admission, discharge, and triage process as well as in resolving issues of nonbeneficial treatment and rationing. We need to further develop preventive strategies to reduce the burden of critical illness, educate our noncritical care colleagues about these interventions, and improve our outreach, developing early identification and intervention systems.

Implications of ICU triage decisions on patient mortality: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care is generally regarded as expensive, and as a result beds are limited. This has raised serious questions about rationing when there are insufficient beds for all those referred. However, the evidence for the cost effectiveness of intensive care is weak and the work that does exist usually assumes that those who are not admitted do not survive, which is not always the case. Randomised studies of the effectiveness of intensive care are difficult to justify on ethical grounds; therefore, this observational study examined the cost effectiveness of ICU admission by comparing patients who were accepted into ICU after ICU triage to those who were not accepted, while attempting to adjust such comparison for confounding factors. METHODS: This multi-centre observational cohort study involved 11 hospitals in 7 EU countries and was designed to assess the cost effectiveness of admission to intensive care after ICU triage. A total of 7,659 consecutive patients referred to the intensive care unit (ICU) were divided into those accepted for admission and those not accepted. The two groups were compared in terms of cost and mortality using multilevel regression models to account for differences across centres, and after adjusting for age, Karnofsky score and indication for ICU admission. The analyses were also stratified by categories of Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II predicted mortality (< 5%, 5% to 40% and >40%). Cost effectiveness was evaluated as cost per life saved and cost per life-year saved. RESULTS: Admission to ICU produced a relative reduction in mortality risk, expressed as odds ratio, of 0.70 (0.52 to 0.94) at 28 days. When stratified by predicted mortality, the odds ratio was 1.49 (0.79 to 2.81), 0.7 (0.51 to 0.97) and 0.55 (0.37 to 0.83) for <5%, 5% to 40% and >40% predicted mortality, respectively. Average cost per life saved for all patients was $103,771 (€82,358) and cost per life-year saved was $7,065 (€5,607). These figures decreased substantially for patients with predicted mortality higher than 40%, $60,046 (€47,656) and $4,088 (€3,244), respectively. Results were very similar when considering three-month mortality. Sensitivity analyses performed to assess the robustness of the results provided findings similar to the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Not only does ICU appear to produce an improvement in survival, but the cost per life saved falls for patients with greater severity of illness. This suggests that intensive care is similarly cost effective to other therapies that are generally regarded as essential.

Chapter 3. Coordination and collaboration with interface units. Recommendations and standard operating procedures for intensive care unit and hospital preparations for an influenza epidemic or mass disaster.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital preparations for an influenza pandemic or mass disaster with a specific focus on enhancing coordination and collaboration between the ICU and other key stakeholders. METHODS: Based on a literature review and expert opinion, a Delphi process was used to define the essential topics including coordination and collaboration. RESULTS: Key recommendations include: (1) establish an Incident Management System with Emergency Executive Control Groups at facility, local, regional/state or national levels to exercise authority and direction over resource use and communications; (2) develop a system of communication, coordination and collaboration between the ICU and key interface departments within the hospital; (3) identify key functions or processes requiring coordination and collaboration, the most important of these being manpower and resources utilization (surge capacity) and re-allocation of personnel, equipment and physical space; (4) develop processes to allow smooth inter-departmental patient transfers; (5) creating systems and guidelines is not sufficient, it is important to: (a) identify the roles and responsibilities of key individuals necessary for the implementation of the guidelines; (b) ensure that these individuals are adequately trained and prepared to perform their roles; (c) ensure adequate equipment to allow key coordination and collaboration activities; (d) ensure an adequate physical environment to allow staff to properly implement guidelines; (6) trigger events for determining a crisis should be defined. CONCLUSIONS: Judicious planning and adoption of protocols for coordination and collaboration with interface units are necessary to optimize outcomes during a pandemic.

Chapter 5. Essential equipment, pharmaceuticals and supplies. Recommendations and standard operating procedures for intensive care unit and hospital preparations for an influenza epidemic or mass disaster.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations and standard operating procedures for intensive care unit and hospital preparations for an influenza pandemic or mass disaster with a specific focus on essential equipment, pharmaceuticals and supplies. METHODS: Based on a literature review and expert opinion, a Delphi process was used to define the essential topics including essential equipment, pharmaceuticals and supplies. RESULTS: Key recommendations include: (1) ensure that adequate essential medical equipment, pharmaceuticals and important supplies are available during a disaster; (2) develop a communication and coordination system between health care facilities and local/regional/state/country governmental authorities for the provision of additional support; (3) determine the required resources, order and stockpile adequate resources, and judiciously distribute them; (4) acquire additional mechanical ventilators that are portable, provide adequate gas exchange for a range of clinical conditions, function with low-flow oxygen and without high pressure, and are safe for patients and staff; (5) provide advanced ventilatory support and rescue therapies including high levels of inspired oxygen and positive end-expiratory pressure, volume and pressure control ventilation, inhaled nitric oxide, high-frequency ventilation, prone positioning ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; (6) triage scarce resources including equipment, pharmaceuticals and supplies based on those who are likely to benefit most or on a 'first come, first served' basis. CONCLUSIONS: Judicious planning and adoption of protocols for providing adequate equipment, pharmaceuticals and supplies are necessary to optimize outcomes during a pandemic.

Intensive care physicians' attitudes concerning distribution of intensive care resources. A comparison of Israeli, North American and European cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the attitudes of Israeli intensive care physicians regarding intensive care unit (ICU) triage issues. DESIGN: An opinion survey using questionnaires similar to those used in a previous study in the United States. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three physicians, members of the Israel Society of Critical Care Medicine (45%). RESULTS: Important factors for admission to the last ICU bed were: small likelihood of surviving hospitalization, irreversibility of acute disorder, nature of chronic disorders and the physician's personal attitude. Most respondents would admit a patient with a predicted survival of a few weeks (70%) or a patient whose quality of life would be poor according to the physician's (98%) or patient's (77%) definition, to the last ICU bed. The personal attitude of the respondents and their own view of the patient's quality of life were considered as important as the quality of life as viewed by the patient. Israeli physicians tended to refuse patient admission into the ICU more than their US counterparts. Most Israeli physicians refused to discharge an ICU patient in order to admit another, despite bed shortage. CONCLUSIONS: The attitudes of Israeli intensive care physicians towards distribution of ICU resources differ from those of their United States counterparts; they are more paternalistic and comply less with requests for admission. Such attitudes are comparable to those expressed by some European intensive care physicians, highlighting the existence of diversity in the factors important to physicians' decision-making.

Intensive care outflow limitation--frequency, etiology, and impact.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency, causes, and effect of unsuccessful discharge decisions from the ICU. SETTING: An 11-bed general intensive care unit of a 750-bed urban university hospital, tertiary referral center and level one trauma center. DESIGN: A prospective, observational study. PATIENTS: All ICU patients judged appropriate for discharge by the ICU attending physician. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: A total of 856 attempted discharges in 706 patients were analyzed over 16 months. Of these, 703 (82%) were successful within 24 hours. Of the remaining 153 unsuccessful discharges, 51 (33%) were deferred because of medical deterioration, 32 (21%) at the request of the ward physicians or nurses and 70 (46%) because of administrative difficulties (lack of ward bed space or disagreement over admitting service). When compared to patients successfully discharged on the first attempt, those whose discharge was deferred had a significantly longer ICU admission prior to the first discharge attempt (median 4d v 3d, P =.009), and a higher proportion required intermediate care (48% v 26%, P <.001). Both these factors were independently associated with unsuccessful discharge in a logistic regression analysis (OR 1.04, 95%CI 1.02, 1.06, P =.0001, OR 2.05 95%CI 1.30, 3.26, P =.002, respectively). Deferred discharges accounted for 153 days of ICU care (2.6% of the total) and were associated with ICU overflow on 118 days (2% of all ICU days). CONCLUSION: ICU outflow limitation occurs in up to 1 in 6 discharges. It can be due to medical deterioration, level of care issues or administrative problems, and may lead to inefficient use of ICU resources.