The Italian document: decisions for intensive care when there is an imbalance between care needs and resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In early 2020, the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) published clinical ethics recommendations for the allocation of intensive care during COVID-19 pandemic emergency. Later the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) invited SIAARTI and the Italian Society of Legal and Insurance Medicine to prepare a draft document for the definition of triage criteria for intensive care during the emergency, to be implemented in case of complete saturation of care resources. METHODS: Following formal methods, including two Delphi rounds, a multidisciplinary group with expertise in intensive care, legal medicine and law developed 12 statements addressing: (1) principles and responsibilities; (2) triage; (3) previously expressed wishes; (4) reassessment and shifting to palliative care; (5) collegiality and transparency of decisions. The draft of the statements, with their explanatory comments, underwent a public consultation opened to Italian scientific or technical-professional societies and other stakeholders (i.e., associations of citizens, patients and caregivers; religious communities; industry; public institutions; universities and research institutes). Individual healthcare providers, lay people, or other associations could address their comments by e-mail. RESULTS: Eight stakeholders (including scientific societies, ethics organizations, and a religious community), and 8 individuals (including medical experts, ethicists and an association) participated to the public consultation. The stakeholders' agreement with statements was on average very high (ranging from 4.1 to 4.9, on a scale from 1-full disagreement to 5-full agreement). The 4 statements concerning triage stated that in case of saturation of care resources, the intensive care triage had to be oriented to ensuring life-sustaining treatments to as many patients as possible who could benefit from them. The decision should follow full assessment of each patient, taking into account comorbidities, previous functional status and frailty, current clinical condition, likely impact of intensive treatment, and the patient's wishes. Age should be considered as part of the global assessment of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Lacking national guidelines, the document is the reference standard for healthcare professionals in case of imbalance between care needs and available resources during a COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, and a point of reference for the medico-legal assessment in cases of dispute.

Liability of Health Care Professionals and Institutions During COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: Symposium Proceedings and Position Statement.

BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2020, a symposium titled "Liability of healthcare professionals and institutions during COVID-19 pandemic" was held in Italy with the participation of national experts in malpractice law, hospital management, legal medicine, and clinical risk management. The symposium's rationale was the highly likely inflation of criminal and civil proceedings concerning alleged errors committed by health care professionals and decision makers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its aim was to identify and discuss the main issues of legal and medicolegal interest and thus to find solid solutions in the spirit of preparedness planning. METHODS: There were 5 main points of discussion: (A) how to judge errors committed during the pandemic because of the application of protocols and therapies based on no or weak evidence of efficacy, (B) whether hospital managers can be considered liable for infected health care professionals who were not given adequate personal protective equipment, (C) whether health care professionals and institutions can be considered liable for cases of infected inpatients who claim that the infection was transmitted in a hospital setting, (D) whether health care institutions and hospital managers can be considered liable for the hotspots in long-term care facilities/care homes, and (E) whether health care institutions and hospital managers can be considered liable for the worsening of chronic diseases. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Limitation of the liability to the cases of gross negligence (with an explicit definition of this term), a no-fault system with statal indemnities for infected cases, and a rigorous methodology for the expert witnesses were proposed as key interventions for successfully facing future proceedings.