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.

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.

NASA-TLX assessment of workload in resident physicians and faculty surgeons covering trauma, surgical intensive care unit, and emergency general surgery services.

BACKGROUND: Higher workload is associated with burnout and lower performance. Therefore, we aim to assess shift-related factors associated with higher workload on EGS, ICU, and trauma surgery services. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, faculty surgeons and surgery residents completed a survey after each EGS, ICU, or trauma shift, including shift details and a modified NASA-TLX. RESULTS: Seventeen faculty and 12 residents completed 174 and 48 surveys after working scheduled 12-h and 24-h shifts, respectively (response rates: faculty - 62%, residents - 42%). NASA-TLX was significantly increased with a higher physician subjective fatigue level. Further, seeing more consults or performing more operations than average significantly increased workload. Finally, NASA-TLX was significantly higher for faculty when they felt their shift was more difficult than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volume clinical responsibilities and higher subjective fatigue levels are independently associated with higher workload. Designing shift coverage to expand on busier days may decrease workload, impacting burnout and shift performance.

Do Not Waste a Crisis: Physician Engagement during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Physician engagement is an important factor in improving care quality and patient safety, but engaging physicians is not easy. Winston Churchill's famous assertion about never wasting a crisis has defined the approach taken by many leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper describes three case studies of successful physician engagement across the continuum of acute care, chronic care and primary care settings during the pandemic. These examples offer insights on physician engagement within unique settings by leveraging intrinsic motivators and Spurgeon's model of medical engagement.

Anesthesiology and Critical Care Response to COVID-19 in Resource-Limited Settings: Experiences from Nepal.

It is difficult to predict the future course and length of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has devastated health care systems in low- and middle-income countries. Anesthesiology and critical care services are hard hit because many hospitals have stopped performing elective surgeries, staff and scarce hospital resources have been diverted to manage COVID-19 patients, and several makeshift COVID-19 units had to be set up. Intensive care units are overwhelmed with critically ill patients. In these difficult times, low- and middle-income countries need to improvise, perform indigenous research, adapt international guidelines to suit local needs, and target attainable clinical goals.

Developing the COVID-19 intensive care medical equipment distribution platform: outcomes and lessons learned.

During the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, the UK government took the decision to centralise the procurement, allocation and distribution of mission-critical intensive care unit (ICU) medical equipment. Establishing new supply chains in the context of global shortages presented significant challenges. This report describes the development of an innovative platform developed rapidly and voluntarily by clinical engineers, to mobilise the UK's shared medical equipment inventory, in order to match ICU capacity to dynamically evolving clinical demand. The 'Coronavirus ICU Medical Equipment Distribution' platform was developed to optimise ICU equipment allocation, distribution, collection, redeployment and traceability across the National Health Service. Although feedback on the platform has largely been very positive, the platform was built for a scenario that did not fully materialise in the UK and this affected the implementation approach. As such, it was not used to its full potential. Nonetheless, the platform and the insights derived and disseminated in its development have been extremely valuable. It provides a prototype for not only optimising system capacity in future pandemic scenarios but also a means for maximally exploiting the large amount of new equipment in the UK health system, as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. This early stage innovation has demonstrated that a system-wide pooled information resource can benefit the operations of individual organisations. It has also generated numerous lessons to be borne in mind in innovation projects.

Use of the spatial access ratio to measure geospatial access to emergency general surgery services in California.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) encompasses a spectrum of time-sensitive and resource-intensive conditions, which require adequate and timely access to surgical care. Developing metrics to accurately quantify spatial access to care is critical for this field. We sought to evaluate the ability of the spatial access ratio (SPAR), which incorporates travel time, hospital capacity, and population demand in its ability to measure spatial access to EGS care and delineate disparities. METHODS: We constructed a geographic information science platform for EGS-capable hospitals in California and mapped population location, race, and socioeconomic characteristics. We compared the SPAR to the shortest travel time model in its ability to identify disparities in spatial access overall and for vulnerable populations. Reduced spatial access was defined as >60 minutes travel time or lowest three classes of SPAR. RESULTS: A total of 283 EGS-capable hospitals were identified, of which 142 (50%) had advanced resources. Using shortest travel time, only 166,950 persons (0.4% of total population) experienced prolonged (>60 minutes) travel time to any EGS-capable hospital, which increased to 1.05 million (2.7%) for advanced-resource centers. Using SPAR, 11.5 million (29.5%) had reduced spatial access to any EGS hospital, and 13.9 million (35.7%) for advanced-resource centers. Rural residents had significantly decreased access for both overall and advanced EGS services when assessed by SPAR despite travel times within the 60-minute threshold. CONCLUSION: While travel time and SPAR showed similar overall geographic patterns of spatial access to EGS hospitals, SPAR identified a greater a greater proportion of the population as having limited access to care. Nearly one third of California residents experience reduced spatial access to EGS hospitals when assessed by SPAR. Metrics that incorporate measures of population demand and hospital capacity in addition to travel time may be useful when assessing spatial access to surgical services. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Cross-sectional study, level VI.

Variation in Initial U.S. Hospital Responses to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has strained many healthcare systems. In response, U.S. hospitals altered their care delivery systems, but there are few data regarding specific structural changes. Understanding these changes is important to guide interpretation of outcomes and inform pandemic preparedness. We sought to characterize emergency responses across hospitals in the United States over time and in the context of local case rates early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN: We surveyed hospitals from a national acute care trials group regarding operational and structural changes made in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from January to August 2020. We collected prepandemic characteristics and changes to hospital system, space, staffing, and equipment during the pandemic. We compared the timing of these changes with county-level coronavirus disease 2019 case rates. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: U.S. hospitals participating in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network Coronavirus Disease 2019 Observational study. Site investigators at each hospital collected local data. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five sites participated (94% response rate). System-level changes (incident command activation and elective procedure cancellation) occurred at nearly all sites, preceding rises in local case rates. The peak inpatient census during the pandemic was greater than the prior hospital bed capacity in 57% of sites with notable regional variation. Nearly half (49%) expanded ward capacity, and 63% expanded ICU capacity, with nearly all bed expansion achieved through repurposing of clinical spaces. Two-thirds of sites adapted staffing to care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019, with 48% implementing tiered staffing models, 49% adding temporary physicians, nurses, or respiratory therapists, and 30% changing the ratios of physicians or nurses to patients. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic prompted widespread system-level changes, but front-line clinical care varied widely according to specific hospital needs and infrastructure. Linking operational changes to care delivery processes is a necessary step to understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on patient outcomes.

Valoración de disparadores de consulta para optimizar la oportunidad de acceso a los cuidados paliativos en la UCI / Assessment of consultation triggers to optimize the opportunity to access palliative care in the ICU / Avaliação dos critérios de elegibilidade para otimizar a oportunidade de acesso aos cuidados paliativos na UTI

Resumen: Introducción: los cuidados paliativos (CP) son un marcador de calidad de asistencia en terapia intensiva; sin embargo, han sido poco evaluados en Uruguay. La detección proactiva de pacientes mediante disparadores de consultas es una estrategia que podría optimizar el acceso a los CP. Objetivos: determinar la prevalencia y las características de los disparadores de consulta de CP en pacientes críticos. Analizar la utilización de recursos en estos pacientes. Material y método: estudio de cohorte, retrospectivo, que incluyó pacientes ingresados a unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) entre marzo de 2016 y febrero de 2019. Los disparadores analizados fueron: a) presencia de tumor con metástasis; b) estadía en UCI 50% por encima de la media (14 días); c) >75 años con disfunción orgánica múltiple, y d) >80 años con dos o más comorbilidades graves. Resultados: se analizaron 2.850 pacientes. El 26% (734) presentó al menos un disparador de consulta con CP. El más prevalente: estadía en UCI 50% por encima de la media (18%). Estos pacientes presentaron mayor edad: 61 (43-75) vs 54 (36-65) años (p < 0,001) y mayor gravedad, SAPSIII de 60 (48-74) vs 47 (35-61) puntos (p<0,001). Requirieron más asistencia respiratoria mecánica (ARM) 87% vs 55% (p <0,001), vasopresores 48% vs 24% (p< 0,001) y hemodiálisis 8% vs 4% (p<0,001). Presentaron mayor estadía 18 (9-27) vs 4 (2-8) días, (p<0,001) y tiempo en ARM 14 (7-23) vs 3 (1- 6) días (p<0,001). Conclusiones: la cuarta parte de los pacientes en UCI activaron al menos un criterio de CP, presentaron mayor gravedad y utilizaron más sostén de soporte vital.

Summary: Introduction: palliative care (PC) constitutes a marker of the quality of intensive care assistance. However, it has not been thoroughly assessed in Uruguay. Proactive detection of patients by means of "consultation triggers" should be considered a strategy to optimize access to PC. Objetives: to determine the prevalence and characteristics of Palliative Care consultation triggers in critical patients. To analyse the use of resources in these patients. Method: retrospective cohort study of patients admitted in the ICU between March 2016 and February 2019. The following triggers were identified: a) a tumor with metastasis; length of stay at the ICU 50% over the average (14 days), c) >75 years old with multiple organic dysfunction and d) >80 years old with 2 or more severe comorbidities Results: 2.850 patients were analysed. 26% (734) presented at least one consultation trigger with PC. Length of stay at the ICU 50% over average (18%). These patients presented higher average age 61 (43-75) versus 54 (36-65) years old (p < 0.001), and increased severity, SAPSIII of 60 (48-74) compared to 47 (35-61) points (p<0.001); 87% required mechanical ventilation compared to 55% (p <0.001), vasopressors 48% compared to 24% (p< 0.001) and hemodialysis 8% compared to 4% (p<0.001). 18 presented a longer stay (9-27) compared to 4 (2-8) days, (p<0.001) and time on mechanical ventilation 14 (7-23) compared to 3 (1- 6) days (p<0.001). Conclusions: 25 percent of patients in the ICU activated at least one criterion for PC, they were in a more severe condition and used more mechanical ventilation.

Resumo: Introdução: os cuidados paliativos (CP) são um marcador de qualidade da atenção em Terapia Intensiva, porém, pouco avaliados no Uruguai. A detecção proativa de pacientes usando "gatilhos de consulta" é uma estratégia que pode otimizar o acesso aos CP. Metas: determinar a prevalência e as características dos critérios de elegibilidade de CP em pacientes críticos. Analisar o uso de recursos nesses pacientes. Materiais e métodos: estudo de coorte retrospectivo, incluindo pacientes internados na UTI entre março de 2016 e fevereiro de 2019. Os critérios analisados foram: a) presença de tumor com metástase, b) permanência na UTI 50% acima da média (14 dias), c ) >75 anos com disfunção de múltiplos órgãos e d) >80 anos com 2 ou mais comorbidades graves. Resultados: 2.850 pacientes foram analisados. 26% (734) apresentaram pelo menos 1 critério de elegibilidade para CP. O mais prevalente foi a permanecia na UTI 50% superior à média (18%). Esses pacientes tinham mais de 61 anos (43-75) vs 54 (36-65) anos (p <0,001) e condições mais graves, SAPSIII de 60 (48-74) vs 47 (35-61) pontos (p <0,001). Necessitaram mais ventilação mecânica assistida (AVM) 87% vs 55% (p <0,001), vasopressores 48% vs 24% (p <0,001) e hemodiálise 8% vs 4% (p <0,001). Tiveram uma permanência mais prolongada 18 (9-27) vs 4 (2-8) dias, (p <0,001) e tempo em AVM 14 (7-23) vs 3 (1-6) dias (p <0,001). Conclusões: um quarto dos pacientes internados na UTI ativou pelo menos um critério de elegibilidade para CP, apresentou maior gravidade e utilizou mais suporte vital.

Healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Critical care telemedicine (CCT) has long been advocated for enabling access to scarce critical care expertise in geographically-distant areas. Additional advantages of CCT include the potential for reduced variability in treatment and care through clinical decision support enabled by the analysis of large data sets and the use of predictive tools. Evidence points to health systems investing in telemedicine appearing better prepared to respond to sudden increases in demand, such as during pandemics. However, challenges with how new technologies such as CCT are implemented still remain, and must be carefully considered. OBJECTIVES: This synthesis links to and complements another Cochrane Review assessing the effects of interactive telemedicine in healthcare, by examining the implementation of telemedicine specifically in critical care. Our aim was to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative research evidence on healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of CCT, and to identify factors that are more likely to ensure successful implementation of CCT for subsequent consideration and assessment in telemedicine effectiveness reviews. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for eligible studies from inception to 14 October 2019; alongside 'grey' and other literature searches. There were no language, date or geographic restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis. Studies included views from healthcare stakeholders including bedside and CCT hub critical care personnel, as well as administrative, technical, information technology, and managerial staff, and family members. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using a predetermined extraction sheet. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist to assess the methodological rigour of individual studies. We followed the Best-fit framework approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform our data synthesis.  We classified additional themes not captured by CFIR under a separate theme. We used the GRADE CERQual approach to assess confidence in the findings. MAIN RESULTS: We found 13 relevant studies. Twelve were from the USA and one was from Canada. Where we judged the North American focus of the studies to be a concern for a finding's relevance, we have reflected this in our assessment of confidence in the finding. The studies explored the views and experiences of bedside and hub critical care personnel; administrative, technical, information technology, and managerial staff; and family members. The intensive care units (ICUs) were from tertiary hospitals in urban and rural areas. We identified several factors that could influence the implementation of CCT. We had high confidence in the following findings: Hospital staff and family members described several advantages of CCT. Bedside and hub staff strongly believed that the main advantage of CCT was having access to experts when bedside physicians were not available. Families also valued having access to critical care experts. In addition, hospital staff described how CCT could support clinical decision-making and mentoring of junior staff.  Hospital staff greatly valued the nature and quality of social networks between the bedside and CCT hub teams. Key issues for them were trust, acceptance, teamness, familiarity and effective communication between the two teams. Interactions between some bedside and CCT hub staff were featured with tension, frustration and conflict. Staff on both sides commonly described disrespect of their expertise, resistance and animosity. Hospital staff thought it was important to promote and offer training in the use of CCT before its implementation. This included rehearsing every step in the process, offering staff opportunities to ask questions and disseminating learning resources. Some also complained that experienced staff were taken away from bedside care and re-allocated to the CCT hub team. Hospital staff's attitudes towards, knowledge about and value placed on CCT influenced acceptance of CCT. Staff were positive towards CCT because of its several advantages. But some were concerned that the CCT hub staff were not able to understand the patient's situation through the camera. Some were also concerned about confidentiality of patient data. We also identified other factors that could influence the implementation of CCT, although our confidence in these findings is moderate or low. These factors included the extent to which telemedicine software was adaptable to local needs, and hub staff were aware of local norms; concerns about additional administrative work and cost; patients' and families' desire to stay close to their local community; the type of hospital setting; the extent to which there was support from senior leadership; staff access to information about policies and procedures; individuals' stage of change; staff motivation, competence and values; clear strategies for staff engagement; feedback about progress; and the impact of CCT on staffing levels. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified several factors that could influence the acceptance and use of telemedicine in critical care. These include the value that hospital staff and family members place on having access to critical care experts, staff access to sufficient training, and the extent to which healthcare providers at the bedside and the critical care experts supporting them from a distance acknowledge and respect each other's expertise. Further research, especially in contexts other than North America, with different cultures, norms and practices will strengthen the evidence base for the implementation of CCT internationally and our confidence in these findings. Implementation of CCT appears to be growing in importance in the context of global pandemic management, especially in countries with wide geographical dispersion and limited access to critical care expertise. For successful implementation, policymakers and other stakeholders should consider pre-empting and addressing factors that may affect implementation, including strengthening teamness between bedside and hub teams; engaging and supporting frontline staff; training ICU clinicians on the use of CCT prior to its implementation; and ensuring staff have access to information and knowledge about when, why and how to use CCT for maximum benefit.

Mitigating Inequities and Saving Lives with ICU Triage during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The burdens of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have fallen disproportionately on disadvantaged groups, including the poor and Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities. There is substantial concern that the use of existing ICU triage protocols to allocate scarce ventilators and critical care resources-most of which are designed to save as many lives as possible-may compound these inequities. As governments and health systems revisit their triage guidelines in the context of impending resource shortages, scholars have advocated a range of alternative allocation strategies, including the use of a random lottery to give all patients in need an equal chance of ICU treatment. However, both the save-the-most-lives approach and random allocation are seriously flawed. In this Perspective, we argue that ICU triage policies should simultaneously promote population health outcomes and mitigate health inequities. These ethical goals are sometimes in conflict, which will require balancing the goals of maximizing the number of lives saved and distributing health benefits equitably across society. We recommend three strategies to mitigate health inequities during ICU triage: introducing a correction factor into patients' triage scores to reduce the impact of baseline structural inequities; giving heightened priority to individuals in essential, high-risk occupations; and rejecting use of longer-term life expectancy and categorical exclusions as allocation criteria. We present a practical triage framework that incorporates these strategies and attends to the twin public health goals of promoting population health and social justice.

Allocating scarce intensive care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: practical challenges to theoretical frameworks.

The COVID-19 pandemic strained health-care systems throughout the world. For some, available medical resources could not meet the increased demand and rationing was ultimately required. Hospitals and governments often sought to establish triage committees to assist with allocation decisions. However, for institutions operating under crisis standards of care (during times when standards of care must be substantially lowered in the setting of crisis), relying on these committees for rationing decisions was impractical-circumstances were changing too rapidly, occurring in too many diverse locations within hospitals, and the available information for decision making was notably scarce. Furthermore, a utilitarian approach to decision making based on an analysis of outcomes is problematic due to uncertainty regarding outcomes of different therapeutic options. We propose that triage committees could be involved in providing policies and guidance for clinicians to help ensure equity in the application of rationing under crisis standards of care. An approach guided by egalitarian principles, integrated with utilitarian principles, can support physicians at the bedside when they must ration scarce resources.