Ética do uso de escores prognósticos em unidade de terapia intensiva: revisão integrativa / Ethics in the use of prognostic scores in intensive care units: an integrative review / Ética del uso de puntajes pronósticos en una unidad de cuidados intensivos: una revisión integradora

Resumo O enfrentamento da covid-19 suscitou uma série de problemas na área da saúde, em razão do aumento da demanda de cuidados intensivos. Para solucionar a crise causada pela escassez de recursos de alta complexidade, a tomada de decisão tem se norteado por escores prognósticos, porém esse processo inclui uma dimensão moral, ainda que esta seja menos evidente. Mediante revisão integrativa, este artigo buscou refletir sobre a razoabilidade da utilização de indicadores de gravidade para definir a alocação de recursos escassos na saúde. Observou-se que o trabalho realizado em situações de escassez de recursos provoca sobrecarga moral, convergindo para busca por soluções padronizadas e objetivas, como a utilização de escores prognósticos. Conclui-se que seu uso isolado e indiscriminado não é eticamente aceitável e merece avaliação cautelosa, mesmo em situações emergenciais, como a da covid-19.

Abstract Facing COVID-19 caused many problems in the healthcare field, due to the rise in the intensive care demand. To solve this crisis, caused by the scarcity of resources of high complexity, decision-making has been guided by prognostic scores; however, this process includes a moral dimension, although less evident. With na integrative review, this article sought to reflect on the reasonability of using severity indicators to define the allocation of the scarce resources in healthcare. We observed that the work carried out on resource scarcity situations causes moral overload, converging to the search for standard and objective solutions, such as the use of prognostic scores. We conclude that their isolated and indiscriminate use is not ethically acceptable and deserves cautious evaluation, even in emergency situations, such as COVID-19.

Resumen La lucha contra el Covid-19 implicó una serie de problemas en el área de la salud, debido al aumento de la demanda de cuidados intensivos. Para solucionar la crisis provocada por la escasez de recursos de alta complejidad, la toma de decisiones estuvo orientada por puntuaciones pronósticas, pero este proceso incluye una dimensión moral aún menos evidente. A partir de una revisión integradora, este artículo buscó reflexionar sobre la razonabilidad de utilizar indicadores de gravedad para definir la asignación de recursos escasos en salud. El trabajo realizado en situaciones de escasez de recursos genera sobrecarga moral, llevando a la búsqueda de soluciones estandarizadas y objetivas, como el uso de puntuaciones de pronóstico. Se concluye que su uso aislado e indiscriminado no es éticamente aceptable y merece una cuidadosa evaluación, incluso en situaciones de emergencia, como la del Covid-19.

Scarce Resource Allocation in a Pandemic: A Protocol to Promote Equity, Timeliness, and Transparency.

Shortages of equipment, medication, and staff under coronavirus disease 2019 may force hospitals to make wrenching decisions. Although bioethical guidance is available, published procedures for decision-making processes to resolve the time-sensitive conflicts are rare. Failure to establish decision-making procedures before scarcities arise exposes clinicians to moral distress and potential legal liability, entrenches existing systemic biases, and leaves hospitals without processes to guarantee transparency and consistency in the application of ethical guidelines. Formal institutional processes can reduce the panic, inequity, and irresolution that arise from confronting ethical conflicts under duress. Drawing on expertise in critical care medicine, bioethics, and political science, we propose a decision-making protocol to ensure fairness in the resolution of conflict, timely decision-making, and accountability to improve system response.

Economic decisions on who to treat when resources are not enough for everyone. Evidence from a Spanish survey / Decisiones económicas respecto a quién tratar cuando los recursos no son suficientes para todos. Evidencia de una encuesta española

ABSTRACT Objective To analyze the attitudes of Spanish citizens towards the criteria that should be used as a guide to make decisions regarding the prioritization of patients, namely, medical, economic and person-based criteria. Methods An online self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 546 Spanish respondents. The questionnaire was made up of three questions. In the first two questions respondents faced a hypothetical rationing dilemma involving four patients (differentiated by personal characteristics and health conditions) where they were asked to: (i) choose only one patient to be treated and (ii) rank the patients' assistance priority order. As for the third question, respondents were asked to state their level of agreement with 14 healthcare rationing criteria through a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis and multinomial regressions were used. Results Findings suggest that Spanish respondents support a plurality of views on the rationing principles on which healthcare micro allocation decisions should be based. Despite the fact respondents support the idea that all patients should receive healthcare assistance equally, they also consider the age of the patient, as well as economic factors when establishing assistance priories among patients. Conclusions If it is not possible to provide health care assistance and treatments to all people, then age and economic factors should guide healthcare priority setting.(AU)

RESUMEN Objetivo Explorar las actitudes de los ciudadanos españoles hacia los principios que deben guiar las decisiones relativas a la priorización de pacientes. Métodos Se utilizó un cuestionario auto administrado en línea para recopilar datos de una muestra de 546 encuestados españoles. El cuestionario consta de tres preguntas. En las dos primeras preguntas, los encuestados se enfrentaron a un hipotético dilema de racionamiento con cuatro pacientes (diferenciados por características personales y condiciones de salud) donde tuvieron que: (i) seleccionar un solo paciente para tratar y (ii) clasificar a los pacientes por orden de asistencia. En la tercera pregunta, los encuestados tuvieron que indicar su nivel de acuerdo con 14 criterios de racionamiento a través de una escala de Likert de cinco puntos. Se usaron estadísticas descriptivas, análisis de factores y regresiones multinomiales. Resultados Los resultados sugieren que los encuestados españoles soportan una pluralidad de puntos de vista sobre los principios de racionamiento que sostengan las decisiones de micro asignación de los cuidados de salud. A pesar de que los encuesta-dos apoyan el valor ético de tratar a las personas por igual, también valoran la edad de los pacientes y los factores económicos al establecer las prioridades entre pacientes. Conclusiones Si las personas no pueden ser tratadas por igual, entonces la edad del paciente y las consideraciones económicas deben apoyar el establecimiento de prioridades de atención médica.(AU)

COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY PROPHYLAXIS, COMPARED WITH ON-DEMAND TREATMENT, FOR PATIENTS WITH SEVERE HEMOPHILIA TYPE A IN COLOMBIA.

OBJECTIVES: This article presents a cost-utility analysis from the Colombian health system perspective comparing primary prophylaxis to on-demand treatment using exogenous clotting factor VIII (FVIII) for patients with severe hemophilia type A. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate expected costs and outcomes (measured as quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) for each strategy. Transition probabilities were estimated using published studies; utility weights were obtained from a sample of Colombian patients with hemophilia and costs were gathered using local data. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: The additional cost per QALY gained of primary prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment was 105,081,022 Colombian pesos (COP) (55,204 USD), and thus not considered cost-effective according to a threshold of up to three times the current Colombian gross domestic product (GDP) per-capita. When primary prophylaxis was provided throughout life using recombinant FVIII (rFVIII), which is much costlier than FVIII, the additional cost per QALY gained reached 174,159,553 COP (91,494 USD). CONCLUSIONS: using a decision rule of up to three times the Colombian GDP per capita, primary prophylaxis (with either FVIII or rFVIII) would not be considered as cost-effective in this country. However, a final decision on providing or preventing patients from primary prophylaxis as a gold standard of care for severe hemophilia type A should also consider broader criteria than the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results itself. Only a price reduction of exogenous FVIII of 50 percent or more would make primary prophylaxis cost-effective in this context.