What are the views of Quebec and Ontario citizens on the tiebreaker criteria for prioritizing access to adult critical care in the extreme context of a COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND: The prioritization protocols for accessing adult critical care in the extreme pandemic context contain tiebreaker criteria to facilitate decision-making in the allocation of resources between patients with a similar survival prognosis. Besides being controversial, little is known about the public acceptability of these tiebreakers. In order to better understand the public opinion, Quebec and Ontario's protocols were presented to the public in a democratic deliberation during the summer of 2022. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore the perspectives of Quebec and Ontario citizens regarding tiebreakers, identifying the most acceptable ones and their underlying values. (2) To analyze these results considering other public consultations held during the pandemic on these criteria. METHODS: This was an exploratory qualitative study. The design involved an online democratic deliberation that took place over two days, simultaneously in Quebec and Ontario. Public participants were selected from a community sample which excluded healthcare workers. Participants were first presented the essential components of prioritization protocols and their related issues (training session day 1). They subsequently deliberated on the acceptability of these criteria (deliberation session day 2). The deliberation was then subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 47 participants from the provinces of Quebec (n = 20) and Ontario (n = 27) took part in the online deliberation. A diverse audience participated excluding members of the healthcare workforce. Four themes were identified: (1) Priority to young patients - the life cycle - a preferred tiebreaker; (2) Randomization - a tiebreaker of last resort; (3) Multiplier effect of most exposed healthcare workers - a median acceptability tiebreaker, and (4) Social value - a less acceptable tiebreaker. CONCLUSION: Life cycle was the preferred tiebreaker as this criterion respects intergenerational equity, which was considered relevant when allocating scarce resources to adult patients in a context of extreme pandemic. Priority to young patients is in line with other consultations conducted around the world. Additional studies are needed to further investigate the public acceptability of tiebreaker criteria.

Practices in Triage and Transfer of Critically Ill Patients: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Selection Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and appraise articles describing criteria used to prioritize or withhold a critical care admission. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Medline, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL Complete databases. Gray literature searches and a manual review of references were also performed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. STUDY SELECTION: We sought all articles and abstracts of original research as well as local, provincial, or national policies on the topic of ICU resource allocation. We excluded studies whose population of interest was neonatal, pediatric, trauma, or noncritically ill. Screening of 6,633 citations was conducted. DATA EXTRACTION: Triage and/or transport criteria were extracted, based on type of article, methodology, publication year, and country. An appraisal scale was developed to assess the quality of identified articles. We also developed a robustness score to further appraise the robustness of the evidence supporting each criterion. Finally, all criteria were extracted, evaluated, and grouped by theme. DATA SYNTHESIS: One-hundred twenty-nine articles were included. These were mainly original research (34%), guidelines (26%), and reviews (21%). Among them, we identified 200 unique triage and transport criteria. Most articles highlighted an exclusion (71%) rather than a prioritization mechanism (17%). Very few articles pertained to transport of critically ill patients (4%). Criteria were classified in one of four emerging themes: patient, condition, physician, and context. The majority of criteria used were nonspecific. No study prospectively evaluated the implementation of its cited criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified 200 criteria classified within four themes that may be included when devising triage programs including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We identified significant knowledge gaps where research would assist in improving existing triage criteria and guidelines, aiming to decrease arbitrary decisions and variability.

Ultrasound findings in critical care patients: the "liver sign" and other abnormal abdominal air patterns.

In critical care patients, point of care abdominal ultrasound examination, although it has been practiced for over 30 years, is not as widespread as its cardiac or pulmonary counterparts. We report two cases in which detection of air during abdominal ultrasound allowed the early detection of life-threatening pathologies. In the first case, a patient with severe Clostridium difficile was found to have portal venous gas but its significance was confounded by a recent surgery. Serial ultrasonographic exams triggered a surgical intervention. In the second case, we report what we call the "liver sign" a finding in patients with pneumoperitoneum. These findings, all obtained prior to conventional abdominal imaging, had immediate clinical impact and avoided unnecessary delays and radiation. Detection of abdominal air should be part of the routine-focused ultrasonographic exam and for critically ill patients an algorithm is proposed.

The Perceived Likelihood of Outcome of Critical Care Patients and Its Impact on Triage Decisions: A Case-Based Survey of Intensivists and Internists in a Canadian, Quaternary Care Hospital Network.

INTRODUCTION: There is high variability amongst physicians' assessments of appropriate ICU admissions, which may be based on potential assessments of benefit. We aimed to examine whether opinions over benefit of ICU admissions of critically ill medical inpatients differed based on physician specialty, namely intensivists and internists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out an anonymous, web-based questionnaire survey containing 5 typical ICU cases to all ICU physicians regardless of their base specialty as well as to all internists in 3 large teaching hospitals. For each case, we asked the participants to determine if the patient was an appropriate ICU admission and to assess different parameters (e.g. baseline function, likelihood of survival to ICU discharge, etc.). Agreement was measured using kappa values. RESULTS: 21 intensivists and 22 internists filled out the survey (response rate = 87.5% and 35% respectively). Predictions of likelihood of survival to ICU admission, hospital discharge and return to baseline were not significantly different between the two groups. However, agreement between individuals within each group was only slight to fair (kappa range = 0.09-0.22). There was no statistically significant difference in predicting ICU survival and prediction of survival to hospital discharge between both groups. The accuracy with which physicians predicted actual outcomes ranged between 35% and 100% and did not significantly differ between the two groups. A greater proportion of internists favoured non resuscitative measures (24.6% of intensivists and 46.9% internists [p = 0.002]). CONCLUSION: In a case-based survey, physician specialty base did not affect assessments of ICU admission benefit or accuracy in outcome prediction, but resulted in a statistically significant difference in level of care assignments. Of note, significant disagreement amongst individuals in each group was found.