Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program DirectorsFREE
Submit a Comment
Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated. Please see our information for authorsregarding comments on an Annals publication.
Abstract
Background:
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies.
Objective:
To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content.
Design:
Survey and mixed-methods content analysis.
Setting:
North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.
Participants:
Program directors.
Measurements:
Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership.
Results:
Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations.
Limitation:
The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs.
Conclusion:
Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation.
Primary Funding Source:
None.
The severe threat posed by the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in resource shortages, requiring difficult decisions about the allocation of essential resources, such as critical care beds, ventilators, and medications (1–3). (We will subsequently refer to “ventilators” and “mechanical ventilation” for the sake of simplicity.) In general, health care is provided according to a conventional, well-established standard of care. When health care resources are severely strained, contingency standards of care, which modify usual practices but still aim at producing similar clinical outcomes, may be implemented. For example, health care providers may substitute or reuse scarce supplies. However, such changes may not be sufficient (4). If demand is greater than the available resources, it becomes ethically justifiable to shift the focus from individual patients' preferences or best interests to saving the most lives possible (5–7). It may, unfortunately, be necessary to withhold or withdraw mechanical ventilation from individuals who would otherwise benefit from its use. What criteria should be used to ethically allocate scarce resources and what processes should be used to fairly implement allocation decisions are monumental questions facing many hospitals, health care systems, and governmental entities. To help answer these questions, we report a mixed-methods analysis of U.S. triage policies.
Triage criteria include need (providing resources only to individuals who will not survive without them) and benefit (providing resources to individuals most likely to survive with their use). However, there is considerable debate over how best to assess need and benefit and which, if any, additional criteria should be used (8–10). For instance, some have argued for conserving resources: for example, sequentially allocating a ventilator to 2 people who are each likely to require it for 1 week to survive instead of to 1 person who is likely to require it for 2 weeks (8, 11). Others have advocated for the principle of narrow social utility: prioritizing such groups as health care workers, whose efforts are in short supply and are necessary to save lives (9, 12). Although age is generally not a good proxy for benefit, some contend that younger individuals should be given priority to have an equal opportunity to survive into adulthood (10, 13, 14). With regard to implementation, it is generally agreed that allocation decisions should be made by an institutional triage team or officer not directly involved in patient care (15).
In the face of COVID-19, many hospitals, health care systems, and health departments are urgently developing new or revising existing triage policies. Hospitals in other countries, and increasingly in the United States, have already had to make difficult allocation decisions (2, 16). There will be justified variation in these policies owing to jurisdictional differences and local norms, but unjustified variation could exacerbate structural inequities, squander valuable resources, and undermine public trust.
As members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (ABPD) who share a concern for ethically sound and fair policies, we sought to understand whether, in the face of vigorous academic and public debate about allocation criteria and processes, some consensus is emerging. We compared triage policies from institutions across the United States to characterize the criteria and scoring systems they use, and how the criteria and scoring systems are implemented.
Methods
We used an invitation letter (Supplement 1) to solicit ventilator triage policies from ABPD members. The ABPD is a voluntary membership organization of the leadership of academic bioethics programs in the United States and Canada (17). We requested that each program director indicate whether the institution with which they are affiliated has a ventilator triage policy, or whether it does not have or is developing one. If the institution has a policy, whether approved or in draft form, we asked the director to provide a copy. The initial solicitation and subsequent reminders were sent via e-mail. Participation was voluntary, and we provided no incentives. We contacted directors between 19 and 30 March 2020.
Coding of the Policies
We coded the policies by using qualitative methods, starting with a set of categories based on the literature and modifying or adding new categories on the basis of a preliminary review of the policies (18). Thirteen ABPD members coded the policies. Each policy was assigned to 2 members who coded independently and reconciled any differences through mutual agreement. With the exception that no members coded policies that they had written or that came from their own institution, assignment was made without reference to the policy's content. Reviewers were blinded to the policy's origins to the extent possible. Two reviewers also independently coded demographic information about the institutions and policies. We obtained information on the institutions from the American Hospital Directory (19). We characterized the location by using the U.S. Census Bureau's Census Regions and Divisions of the United States (20) and the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy's Data Files (21). Data were collected and managed by using REDCap electronic data capture tools (Supplement 2), which is hosted at Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine (22, 23), and were analyzed by using descriptive statistics.
The research protocol was reviewed by Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center's Institutional Review Board, which determined that it did not constitute human subject research and therefore did not require its approval. If ABPD members requested that their policy remain confidential, we honored their request and assured them that we would report only deidentified results.
Role of the Funding Source
The study was not funded.
Results
The ABPD has 91 members representing 79 unique institutions. Six of these institutions do not have direct relationships with hospitals that provide critical care. Of the 73 eligible institutions, 67 program directors responded, resulting in a response rate of 91.8%. Individuals who responded but had retired or changed institutions were considered nonresponders.
The responding directors indicated that 36 (50.0%) of their associated institutions did not have policies or had policies currently under development, and 7 (9.7%) had policies but the directors could not share them. The 29 (40.3%) hospitals with policies represent 18 states and the District of Columbia. The following locations were represented by more than 1 hospital: Massachusetts (3 hospitals), Michigan (2 hospitals), Minnesota (2 hospitals), New York (3 hospitals), Pennsylvania (2 hospitals), Texas (2 hospitals), Utah (2 hospitals), and Washington (2 hospitals). Nine (31%) of the hospitals are located in the Northeast, 9 (31%) in the South, 5 (17%) in the Midwest, and 6 (21%) in the West (Table 1). All are located in urban areas. Seven (24%) of the institutions are governmental, 2 (7%) proprietary, and 20 (69%) voluntary nonprofit. For 1 hospital, information on teaching status, trauma center status, and number of staffed beds was not available. All institutions with complete information have academic affiliations. Eighteen (64%) hospitals with complete information are Level 1 trauma centers. The institution's total number of staffed beds ranged from 288 to 1663 (mean, 770 beds) and special care beds, which includes intensive and coronary care units, from 22 to 481 (mean, 174 beds).
Three directors each contributed policies from 2 different associated sites, and 3 pairs of institutions utilized the same policy: the New York State Task Force's Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (24), Veterans Health Administration's Meeting the Challenge of Pandemic Influenza (25), and the Washington State Department of Health's Scarce Resource Triage Team Guidelines (26). This resulted in 26 unique triage policies for analysis (Figure).
Figure. Ascertainment of ventilator triage policies.
ABPD = Association of Bioethics Program Directors.
* Two responders each reported on 2 associated hospitals and 1 responder on 4 hospitals.
Three (11.3%) of these policies were authored by state health departments, 1 (3.8%) by a regional bioethics committee network, and 1 (3.8%) by a state bioethics advisory committee. Nine (34.6%) are publicly available (they can be located searching the internet). Fourteen (53.8%) policies specify the date of the current version, and 7 (50.0%) of these were written or revised within 30 days of collection. Seven (26.9%) of the policies were approved, 13 (50.0%) were in draft, and 6 (23.1%) did not specify approval status. The policies were 2 to 272 pages (mean, 34.1 pages) long.
The policies articulate many ethical and professional values. The 5 most frequently mentioned are justice (23 policies [88.5%]), transparency (20 [76.9%]), stewardship (16 [61.5%]), duty to care (15 [57.7%]), and duty to prevent unnecessary loss of life (12 [46.2%]). In terms of explicitly stated triage criteria, the 5 most commonly mentioned are benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Only 6 (23.1%) policies utilize a first-come, first-served allocation framework. No policy utilized lottery or first-come, first-served as its sole or exclusive criterion. Ten (38.4%) policies give preference to health care workers: 5 (19.2%) on the basis of reciprocity (recognition of their voluntary acceptance of risk), 4 (15.4%) on the basis of narrow social utility, 1 (3.8%) on the basis of both reciprocity and narrow social utility, and 2 (7.7%) without articulating a specific reason. In specifying need and benefit, 21 (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and the most commonly used scoring system is the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Modified SOFA (MSOFA) score, used in 20 (95.2% of policies that use scoring systems). Twelve (46.2% of all policies) utilize specific clinical diagnoses as allocation criteria—for example, excluding patients with cardiac arrest or severe burns. Although 13 (50.0%) policies utilize age criteria, only 2 (7.7%) specify age thresholds (Table 2). Seventeen (65.4%) policies also specify criteria that should not be considered in allocation decisions. These include the ability to pay, insurance status, or socioeconomic status (13 [50.0% of all policies]); race (12 [46.2%]); broad social utility (social status or social worth) (11 [42.3%]); ethnicity (9 [34.6%]); and citizenship, gender, religion, or sexual orientation (8 [30.8% each]). Only 7 (26.9%) policies specify that decisions should not be based on disability, and 4 (15.4%) prohibit decisions based on age.
In terms of policy activation, only 10 (38.5%) explicitly state that governmental authorization is necessary to activate the policy. Eight (30.8%) policies do not specify an activating authority. The composition of the bodies that make triage decisions (triage committees, teams, or officers) varies among policies. Twelve (46.2%) specify the number of members of this body, and the number ranges from 1 to 8 (mean, 3.7 members). Twenty-three (88.5%) policies specify the composition of these bodies. Among the policies that specify the composition, all require or recommend a physician member. Eighteen (78.3%) of these 23 policies specify that this physician should be trained in critical care and 7 (30.4%) emergency medicine, and 11 (47.8%) specify that this physician should be the chief medical officer or the officer's designee. The other most commonly required or recommended disciplines to compose the body are nurses (20 policies [87.0%]), ethicists or ethics committee members (16 [69.6%]), chaplains (8 [34.8%]), and respiratory therapists (8 [34.8%]). Two (7.7%) policies require or recommend a community member. Nine (34.6% of all policies) exclude individuals who are providing direct patient care from making triage decisions, and an additional 4 (15.4%) recommend that these individuals be excluded.
Although many policies list factors that should be excluded from the triage decision, only 2 (7.7%) require decisions to be blinded (Table 3). One policy, for example, states, “No additional clinical information [in addition to the SOFA score and intubation status] is to be provided to the Triage Committee (policy 6).”
Most policies (22 [84.6%]) specify that decisions should be reevaluated and do so in various ways, including at specific frequencies (for example, every 24 hours), at unspecified frequencies (such as periodically), at specific points in time (for example, at 48 and 120 hours), or on changes in the patient's clinical condition (such as improvement, stagnation, or deterioration). No policy precludes reallocation or withdrawal of resources once they are initially assigned. Most policies (23 [88.5%]) require or recommend the provision of palliative care to individuals from whom resources are withheld or withdrawn. Seven (26.7%) policies permit providers to write do-not-resuscitate orders for patients from whom mechanical ventilation is withheld or withdrawn without proxy consent, and the rest (19 [73.1%]) do not address this issue. Six (23.1%) policies triage extracorporeal membrane oxygen (ECMO) according to the policy, 1 (3.8%) suspends the use of ECMO under a crisis standard of care, and the remainder (19 [73.1%]) do not address ECMO.
Eighteen (69.2%) policies permit appeals, although 11 (61.1%) of these policies limit their scope. For example, one policy states, “The appeal, however, will likely be limited in scope to include only claims of injustice regarding whether the process was completed in full or according to the established standards (policy 4).” In only 2 (11.1%) policies is the appeal heard by the initial decision maker. Sixteen (61.5% of all policies) also specify a method for retrospectively reviewing decisions to assure that the policy is being implemented fairly or to revise the policy on the basis of clinical experience.
Discussion
Many institutions sampled did not yet have approved ventilator triage policies, and the approved and draft policies we reviewed demonstrate substantial heterogeneity. Although most policies utilize clinical need and benefit, determined by SOFA or MSOFA scores, additional criteria vary widely. Furthermore, many policies lack key implementation information, such as whose authority is required to activate the policy and what mechanisms should be used to minimize potential bias.
In anticipation of the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, many institutions engaged in contingency planning, including the development of ventilator triage policies. Some articulated an ethical duty to plan for mass casualty events (27, 28). It is therefore notable that many of the institutions surveyed did not yet have triage policies at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapidity with which these policies are being developed may unfortunately substantially limit stakeholder, including public, engagement (5, 29).
The heterogeneity of the policies is also notable. The 2 most common criteria for making allocation decisions are clinical need and benefit, but outside this area of agreement, policies differ widely in the use of other criteria, such as age, conservation of resources, or giving preference to health care workers. Beyond ethical arguments for and against each of these criteria, the variation among policies is itself problematic because it may result in injustice. For example, if different institutions within the same community use different criteria or prioritize criteria differently, an individual might unknowingly be admitted to a facility with a policy that is unfavorable to him or her. If policies are public, patients might select facilities on the basis of which policy is favorable to them rather than on which policy is fair or ethically sound. State or regional planning for disasters that affect large areas is thus important (5, 6).
Policies that direct action should not have omissions or inconsistencies in their application. Many of the policies sampled do not specify who has the authority to activate the policy (5, 29). It would be problematic if a single institution, without adequate situational awareness to know whether other nearby institutions have available resources, were to become overwhelmed and begin triaging ventilators rather than transferring patients.
Criteria also may not be adequately operationalized, or scoring systems or other assessments may be inconsistent with values articulated in the policies. Some policies, for example, contend that age should be considered without specifying how. Is any difference in age sufficient, or is there a minimum difference in age that is relevant? Clearly operationalized criteria are essential for triage committees or officers implementing the policies. There are also potential inconsistencies between criteria and assessments within some policies. For example, some policies exclude disability discrimination but categorically exclude patients with certain preexisting conditions from receiving mechanical ventilation (30, 31).
Policies that rely on triage teams' or officers' judgment may introduce implicit bias or discrimination (32). Most policies exclude clinicians providing direct patient care from making triage decisions, to avoid role conflicts and preferential consideration being given to certain individual patients, which could bias triage decisions (15). Few policies, however, specify blinding mechanisms to prevent those making triage decisions from access to information about patients that is ethically irrelevant, such as the ability to pay or race. A related concern is the lack of specification in some policies of how triage decisions may be appealed or how they are retrospectively reviewed to ensure consistency and fairness.
Our study has limitations. First, the sample focuses primarily on academic medical centers, and the results may not be generalizable to community hospitals; however, if academic medical centers, with their more expansive resources, are inadequately prepared, community hospitals may be in an even worse position. Second, given the lack of a methodologically rigorous way to differentiate between health care systems and hospitals and to characterize systems, institutions were characterized by their primary hospital. Third, as a result of the difficulty in identifying state triage policies and comparing policies that may have been reformatted or adapted, it was not possible to determine institutional adherence to state recommendations. Finally, to speed the coding process, a relatively large number of individuals were involved in coding, which may produce inconsistency in results; however, potential inconsistencies were reduced by having 2 individuals code each policy and resolve any disagreements through consensus.
In conclusion, hospitals and health care systems are seeking to meet or prepare for extraordinary clinical demands during the COVID-19 pandemic. Developing clear, clinically useful ventilator triage policies is a necessary part of this preparation. Agreement on key criteria for allocating resources is important for policies to be ethically sound and to minimize the harms of unjustified variation. In preparing triage policies, institutions should seek to adequately specify criteria and to reduce the potential influence of discrimination and implicit bias in the triage process.
Appendix: Members of a Task Force of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors
Members of a Task Force of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors who authored this work are: Armand H. Matheny Antommaria, MD, PhD (Ethics Center, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, and University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio), Tyler S. Gibb, JD, PhD (Program in Medical Ethics, Humanities & Law and Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, Michigan), Amy L. McGuire, JD, PhD (Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas), Paul Root Wolpe, PhD (Center for Ethics and School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia), Matthew K. Wynia, MD, MPH (University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities, Schools of Medicine and Public Health, and UC Health System, Aurora, Colorado), Megan K. Applewhite, MD, MA (Alden March Bioethics Institute and Department of Surgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York), Arthur Caplan, PhD (Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York), Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPH (Departments of Pediatrics and Bioethics & Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine and Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington), D. Micah Hester, PhD (Department of Medical Humanities & Bioethics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas), Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, MD, PhD (VA New England Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts), Renee McLeod-Sordjan, DNP (Division of Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, Northwell Health System, New Hyde Park, New York, and Hofstra Northwell School of Graduate Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York), Tamar Schiff, MD (Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York), Holly K. Tabor, PhD (Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California), Sarah E. Wieten, PhD (Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California), and Jason T. Eberl, PhD (Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri).
Supplemental Material
References
1.
Rosen R. I'm a doctor on the front lines of coronavirus. We've thrown out the rule book. Forward. 3 April 2020. Accessed at https://forward.com/opinion/443033/im-a-doctor-on-the-front-lines-of-treating-covid-19-weve-thrown-out-the on 8 April 2020.
2.
McCoy K, Wagner D. Which coronavirus patients will get life-saving ventilators? Guidelines show how hospitals in NYC, US will decide. USA Today. 4 April 2020. Accessed at www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/04/04/coronavirus-ventilator-shortages-may-force-tough-ethical-questions-nyc-hospitals/5108498002 on 8 April 2020.
3.
Parshley L. You can't use ventilators without sedatives. Now the US is running out of those, too. Vox. 6 April 2020. Accessed at www.vox.com/2020/4/6/21209589/coronavirus-medicine-ventilators-drug-shortage-sedatives-covid-19 on 8 April 2020.
4.
Hick JL, Barbera JA, Kelen GD. Refining surge capacity: conventional, contingency, and crisis capacity. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009;3:S59-67. [PMID: 19349869] doi: 10.1097/DMP.0b013e31819f1ae2
5.
Institute of Medicine. Guidance for Establishing Crisis Standards of Care for Use in Disaster Situations: A Letter Report. National Academies Pr; 2009. [PMID: 25032361] doi: 10.17226/12749
6.
Hick JL, Hanfling D, Wynia MK, et al. Duty to Plan: Health Care, Crisis Standards of Care, and Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. National Academies Pr; 2002. doi: 10.31478/202003b
7.
Biddison LD, Berkowitz KA, Courtney B, et al; Task Force for Mass Critical Care. Ethical considerations: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement. Chest. 2014;146:e145S-155S. [PMID: 25144262] doi: 10.1378/chest.14-0742
8.
Winslow GR. Triage and Justice: The Ethics of Rationing Life-Saving Medial Resources. Univ California Pr; 1982.
9.
Emanuel EJ, Persad G, Upshur R, et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020. [PMID: 32202722] doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114
10.
White DB, Lo B. A framework for rationing ventilators and critical care beds during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA. 2020. [PMID: 32219367] doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.5046
11.
Antommaria AH, Powell T, Miller JE, et al; Task Force for Pediatric Emergency Mass Critical Care. Ethical issues in pediatric emergency mass critical care. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2011;12:S163-168. [PMID: 22067926] doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e318234a88b
12.
Rothstein MA. Currents in contemporary ethics. Should health care providers get treatment priority in an influenza pandemic? J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38:412-419. [PMID: 20579237] doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00499.x
13.
Daniels N. Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge Univ Pr; 2007.
14.
White DB, Katz MH, Luce JM, et al. Who should receive life support during a public health emergency? Using ethical principles to improve allocation decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:132-138. [PMID: 19153413]
15.
Truog RD, Mitchell C, Daley GQ. The toughest triage—allocating ventilators in a pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2020. [PMID: 32202721] doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2005689
16.
Ferraresi M. A coronavirus cautionary tale from Italy: don't do what we did. Boston Globe. 12 March 2020. Accessed at www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/13/opinion/coronavirus-cautionary-tale-italy-dont-do-what-we-did on 8 April 2020.
17.
Association of Bioethics Program Directors website. 2020. Accessed at www.bioethicsdirectors.net on 8 April 2020.
18.
Babble E. The Practice of Social Research. 10th ed. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2004.
19.
American Hospital Directory website. 2020. Accessed at www.ahd.com on 15 April 2020.
20.
U.S. Census Bureau. Census regions and divisions of the United States. 2020. Accessed at www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf on 15 April 2020.
21.
Health Resources & Services Administration. Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) data files. December 2018. Accessed at www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/definition/datafiles.html on 15 April 2020.
22.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377-381. [PMID: 18929686] doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
23.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap Consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. [PMID: 31078660] doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
24.
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, New York State Department of Health. Ventilator allocation guidelines. November 2015. Accessed at www.health.ny.gov/regulations/task_force/reports_publications/docs/ventilator_guidelines.pdf on 8 April 2020.
25.
Pandemic Influenza Ethics Initiative Work Group of the Veterans Health Administration's National Center for Ethics in Health Care. Meeting the challenge of pandemic influenza: ethical guidance for leaders and health care professionals in the Veterans Health Administration. July 2010. Accessed at www.ethics.va.gov/docs/pandemicflu/Meeting_the_Challenge_of_Pan_Flu-Ethical_Guidance_VHA_20100701.pdf on 8 April 2020.
26.
Washington State Department of Health, Northwest Healthcare Response Network. Scarce resource management & crisis standards of care. 2019. Accessed at https://nwhrn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Scarce_Resource_Management_and_Crisis_Standards_of_Care_Overview_and_Materials-2020-3-16.pdf on 8 April 2020.
27.
Thomas JC, Dasgupta N, Martinot A. Ethics in a pandemic: a survey of the state pandemic influenza plans. Am J Public Health. 2007;97 Suppl 1:S26-31. [PMID: 17413066]
28.
Powell T, Christ KC, Birkhead GS. Allocation of ventilators in a public health disaster. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2:20-26. [PMID: 18388654] doi: 10.1097/DMP.0b013e3181620794
29.
Hanfling D, Hick J, Stroud C, eds. Committee on Crisis Standards of Care. Crisis Standards of Care: A Toolkit for Indicators and Triggers. National Academies Pr; 2013.
30.
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund. Preventing discrimination in the treatment of COVID-19 patients: the illegality of medical rationing on the basis of disability. 25 March 2020. Accessed at https://dredf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/DREDF-Policy-Statement-on-COVID-19-and-Medical-Rationing-3-25-2020.pdf on 8 April 2020.
31.
Ne'eman A. ‘I will not apologize for my needs': even in a crisis, doctors should not abandon the principle of nondiscrimination. The New York Times. 23 March 2020. Accessed at www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/opinion/coronavirus-ventilators-triage-disability.html?fbclid=IwAR0wor1LpSzTsrlI0gHYlPYJWVjNatNJPTAUXEI8-h-4lHQ1RgcBBEfDgnI on 8 April 2020.
32.
Savin K, Guidry-Grimes L. Confronting disability discrimination during the pandemic. The Hastings Center. 2 April 2020. Accessed at www.thehastingscenter.org/confronting-disability-discrimination-during-the-pandemic on 8 April 2020.
Comments
Sign In to Submit A CommentInformation & Authors
Information
Published In
Annals of Internal Medicine
Volume 173 • Number 3 • 4 August 2020
Pages: 188 - 194
History
Published online: 24 April 2020
Published in issue: 4 August 2020
Keywords
Copyright
© 2020 American College of Physicians.
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. For an editable text file, please select Medlars format which will download as a .txt file. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
Download article citation data for:
Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. Ann Intern Med.2020;173:188-194. [Epub 24 April 2020]. doi:10.7326/M20-1738
Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. Ann Intern Med.2020;173:188-194. [Epub 24 April 2020]. doi:10.7326/M20-1738
View More
Get Access
Login Options:
Purchase
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
Access to EPUBs and PDFs for FREE Annals content requires users to be registered and logged in. A subscription is not required. You can create a free account below or from the following link. You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals. If you are accessing the Free Annals content via your institution's access, registration is not required.
Create your Free Account
You will be redirected to acponline.org to create an account that will provide access to Annals.
Intensive Care Unit Triage Protocols: A Case for Inclusivity and Engagement in COVID-19
As patient partners who live with chronic illness and with lived experiences in intensive care units (ICUs), we compliment the authors for studying triage policies at various institutions in North America. This study provides a timely and essential review of elements related to discrimination, exclusion criteria and community engagement that must be considered during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We were concerned by the findings, specifically, that disability was not well-considered by various healthcare authorities in determining access to ICU services. The paper highlighted that 46.2% of all policies use specific clinical diagnosis in allocating treatment resources and only 26.9% of policies indicated that decisions should not be based on disability. There is not sufficient evidence identifying a correlation between comorbidities and poor outcomes after COVID-19 diagnosis. The exclusion criteria established by healthcare institutions result in decisions to deny care to those with pre-existing conditions. These decisions are not based in evidence and are in fact discriminatory.[1]
We were also concerned with the lack of community engagement in the development of the ICU triage policies identified in this study. The authors highlighted that only 7.7% of hospitals engaged community members as part of the triage team. Community engagement is crucial to ensure diverse perspectives are heard and incorporated into the development of hospital policies in the support of justice and fairness. The World Health Organization has published a Risk Communicate and Community Engagement Action Plan that emphasizes the need for community stakeholders to be involved in decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] Procedural fairness and natural justice require that members of groups potentially affected have a right to be heard and to be part of policy and other decisions made about medical care.[3] Policy development and triage committees must be accountable for these decisions and transparency is imperative.
We are certain that justice isn’t served when these avenues of communication are closed. These hospital policies systematically disadvantage people with disabilities in allocating healthcare resources.[4] Over 15% of the global population has a disability and yet this group is inadequately recognized and protected.[5] Too quickly we forget that people with disabilities are a part of our society, community, workplace and families. We thank the authors for reminding the medical field and policy makers of the essential elements that must be considered during the COVID-19 pandemic.
1. Andersen L, Proulx L, Sirotich E. Are intensive care triage protocols harming the disabled? The BMJ Opinion. 21 May 2020. Accessed at https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/05/21/are-intensive-care-triage-protocols-harming-the-disabled/
2. World Health Organization. Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) Action Plan Guidance COVID-19 Preparedness and Response. 16 March 2020. Accessed at https://www.who.int/publications-detail/risk-communication-and-community-engagement-(rcce)-action-plan-guidance
3. Persad G. What Is the Relevance of Procedural Fairness to Making Determinations about Medical Evidence? AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):183-191. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor1-1702.
4. Armitage R, Nellums LB. The COVID-19 response must be disability inclusive. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(5):e257. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30076-1
5. World Health Organization.World Report on Disability. 13 December 2011. Accessed at https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report/en/
Disclosures:
ES is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient run, volunteer-based organization whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. LP has received speaking fees of less than $500 from a pharmaceutical company. LP is the 2nd Vice President of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient run, volunteer-based organization whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies Lene Andersen is an author and disability rights advocate. She has received consulting fees of less than $2000 from pharmaceutical companies.