Protecting our Elders and Developing Equitable Policies During Public Health Emergencies: Ethical Recommendations.

Purpose of the Review: Experiences of patients, families, healthcare workers and health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic and recent national focus on racial justice have forced a reconsideration of policies and processes of providing care in crisis situations when resources are scarce. The purpose of this review is to present recent developments in conceptualizing ethical crisis standards. Recent findings: Several recent papers have raised concerns that "objective" scarce resource allocation protocols will serve to exacerbate underlying social inequities. Older adults and their formal and informal caregivers suffered from intersecting planning failures including lack of adequate stockpiling of personal protective equipment, failure to protect essential workers, neglect of long-term care facilities and homecare in disaster planning and de-prioiritization in triage algorithms. Summary: Revision of disaster planning guidelines is urgent. The time is now to apply lessons learned from COVID-19 before another disaster occurs. We present several suggestions for future plans.

Quantifying Utilitarian Outcomes to Inform Triage Ethics: Simulated Performance of a Ventilator Triage Protocol under Sars-CoV-2 Pandemic Surge Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Equitable protocols to triage life-saving resources must be specified prior to shortages in order to promote transparency, trust and consistency. How well proposed utilitarian protocols perform to maximize lives saved is unknown. We aimed to estimate the survival rates that would be associated with implementation of the New York State 2015 guidelines for ventilator triage, and to compare them to a first-come-first-served triage method. METHODS: We constructed a simulation model based on a modified version of the New York State 2015 guidelines compared to a first-come-first-served method under various hypothetical ventilator shortages. We included patients with SARs-CoV-2 infection admitted with respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation to three acute care hospitals in New York from 3/01/2020 and 5/27/2020. We estimated (1) survival rates, (2) number of excess deaths, (3) number of patients extubated early or not allocated a ventilator due to capacity constraints, (4) survival rates among patients not allocated a ventilator at triage or extubated early due to capacity constraints. RESULTS: 807 patients were included in the study. The simulation model based on a modified New York State policy did not decrease mortality, excess death or exclusion from ventilators compared to the first-come-first-served policy at every ventilator capacity we tested using COVID-19 surge cohort patients. Survival rates were similar at all the survival probabilities estimated. At the lowest ventilator capacity, the modified New York State policy has an estimated survival of 28.5% (CI: 28.4-28.6), compared to 28.1% (CI: 27.7-28.5) for the first-come-first-served policy. CONCLUSIONS: This simulation of a modified New York State guideline-based triage protocol revealed limitations in achieving the utilitarian goals these protocols are designed to fulfill. Quantifying these outcomes can inform a better balance among competing moral aims.

Modeling Outcomes Using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score-Based Ventilator Triage Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To model performance of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score-based ventilator allocation guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used. Study sites included three New York City hospitals in a single academic medical center. We included a random sample (205) of adult patients intubated (1002) from 3/25/20-4/29/20. Protocol criteria adapted from New York State's 2015 guidelines were applied to determine which patients would have had mechanical ventilation withheld or withdrawn. RESULTS: 117 (57%) patients would have been identified for ventilator withdrawal or withholding, based on the triage guidelines. Of those 117 patients, 28 (24%) survived hospitalization. Overall, 65 (32%) patients survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Triage protocols aim to maximize survival by redirecting ventilators to those most likely to survive. Over half of this sample would have been identified as candidates for ventilator exclusion. Clinical judgment would therefore still be needed in ventilator reallocation, re-introducing bias and moral distress. These data suggest limited utility for SOFA score-based ventilator rationing. This raises the question of whether there is sufficient ethical justification to impose a life-ending decision based on a SOFA scoring method on some patients to offer potential benefit to a modest number of others.

Protecting our Elders and Developing Equitable Policies During Public Health Emergencies: Ethical Recommendations

Purpose of the Review Experiences of patients, families, healthcare workers and health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic and recent national focus on racial justice have forced a reconsideration of policies and processes of providing care in crisis situations when resources are scarce. The purpose of this review is to present recent developments in conceptualizing ethical crisis standards. Recent findings Several recent papers have raised concerns that “objective” scarce resource allocation protocols will serve to exacerbate underlying social inequities. Older adults and their formal and informal caregivers suffered from intersecting planning failures including lack of adequate stockpiling of personal protective equipment, failure to protect essential workers, neglect of long-term care facilities and homecare in disaster planning and de-prioiritization in triage algorithms. Summary Revision of disaster planning guidelines is urgent. The time is now to apply lessons learned from COVID-19 before another disaster occurs. We present several suggestions for future plans.

Primary and Specialist-Level Palliative Care during the spring 2020 COVID-19 Surge: A Single-Center Experience in the Bronx.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic surge necessitated a rapid increase in provision of goals of care communication for patients with respiratory failure and high risk of death. We aimed to describe the outcomes and incidence of code status changes for mechanically ventilated patients in an acute care hospital after deploying strategies to enhance primary palliative care, including provision of goals of care communication scripts to front-line physicians. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including all patients admitted with COVID-19 disease and requiring mechanical ventilation during a 2-week period in March and April of 2020. RESULTS: Of the 440 total patients, 327 (74.3%) died. 162 patients received a documented attempt at cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and only 4 (2.5%) of them survived. No patient above the age of 64 survived a CPR attempt. On admission, 404 patients (92.8%) were Full Code. 165 patients (37.5%) had a code status change. Almost half of the patients (n = 219) had a palliative care consult. Patients with a palliative care consult were more likely to have a code status change (56.6% v. 18.6%, χ2 = 68.0, p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Mechanically ventilated patients had a high mortality, and CPR did not result in survival to discharge in patients over 65. Palliative care specialists are needed to guide goals of care discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic, as there are numerous barriers to equipping primary care teams to lead such discussions. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the vital role of palliative care in disaster response.

COVID in NYC: What We Could Do Better.

New York City hospitals expanded resources to an unprecedented extent in response to the COVID pandemic. Thousands of beds, ICU beds, staff members, and ventilators were rapidly incorporated into hospital systems. Nonetheless, this historic public health disaster still created scarcities and the need for formal crisis standards of care. These were not available to NY clinicians because of the state's failure to implement, with or without revision, long-standing guidance documents intended for just such a pandemic. The authors argue that public health plans for disasters should be well-funded and based on available research and expertise. Communities should insist that political representatives demonstrate responsible leadership by implementing and updating as needed, crisis standards of care. Finally, surge requirements should address the needs of both those expected to survive and those who will not, by expanding palliative care and other resources for the dying.

"We're Not Ready, But I Don't Think You're Ever Ready." Clinician Perspectives on Implementation of Crisis Standards of Care.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health care systems' vulnerabilities. Hospitals face increasing risk of periods of scarcity of life-sustaining resources such as ventilators for mechanical respiratory support, as has been the case in Italy as of March, 2020. The National Academy of Medicine has provided guidance on crisis standards of care, which call for the reallocation of scarce medical resources to those who will benefit most during extreme situations. Given that this will require a departure from the usual fiduciary duty of the bedside clinician, we determined and mapped potential barriers to the implementation of the guidelines from stakeholders using an implementation science framework. Methods: A protocol was created to operationalize national and state guidelines for triaging ventilators during crisis conditions. Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted from July-September 2018 with clinicians at three acute care hospitals of an urban academic medical center. Respiratory therapists, intensivists, nursing leadership and the palliative care interdisciplinary team participated in focus groups. Key informant interviews were conducted with emergency management, respiratory therapy and emergency medicine. Subjects were presented the protocol and their reflections were elicited using a semi-structured interview guide. Data from transcripts and notes were categorized using a coding strategy based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Participants anticipated that implementing this protocol would challenge their roles and identities as clinicians including both their fiduciary duty to the patient and their decision-making autonomy. Despite this, many participants acknowledged the need for such a protocol to standardize care and minimize bias as well as to mitigate potential consequences for individual clinicians. Participants identified the question of considering patient quality of life in triage decisions as an important and unresolved ethical issue in disaster triage. Conclusion: Clinicians' discomfort with shifting roles and obligations could pose implementation barriers for crisis standards of care.