Global Health Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges, Adaptations, and Lessons Learned.

Global health education programs should strive continually to improve the quality of education, increase access, create communities that foster excellence in global health practices, and ensure sustainability. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the University of Minnesota's extensive global health education programs, which includes a decade of hybrid online and in-person programing, to move completely online. We share our experience, a working framework for evaluating global health educational programming, and lessons learned. Over the decades we have moved from a predominantly passive, lecture-based, in-person course to a hybrid online (passive) course with an intensive hands-on 2-week requirement. The pandemic forced us to explore new active online learning models. We retained our on-demand, online passive didactics, which used experts' time efficiently and was widely accessible and well received. In addition, we developed a highly effective synchronous online component that we felt replaced some of the hands-on activities effectively and led us to develop new and innovative "hands-on" experiences. This new, fully online model combining quality asynchronous and synchronous learning provided many unanticipated advantages, such as increasing access while decreasing our carbon footprint dramatically. By sharing our experience, lessons learned, and resources, we hope to inspire other programs likewise to innovate to improve quality, access, community, and sustainability in global health, especially if these innovations can help decrease negative aspects of global health education such as its environmental impact.

Operationalizing Ethical Guidance for Ventilator Allocation in Minnesota: Saving the Most Lives or Exacerbating Health Disparities?

A statewide working group in Minnesota created a ventilator allocation scoring system in anticipation of functioning under a Crisis Standards of Care declaration. The scoring system was intended for patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. There was disagreement about whether the scoring system might exacerbate health disparities and about whether the score should include age. We measured the relationship of ventilator scores to in-hospital and 3-month mortality. We analyzed our findings in the context of ethical and legal guidance for the triage of scarce resources. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Multihospital within a single healthcare system. PATIENTS: Five-hundred four patients emergently intubated and admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Ventilator Allocation Score was positively associated with higher mortality (p < 0.0001). The 3-month mortality rate for patients with a score of 6 or higher was 96% (42/44 patients). Age was positively associated with mortality. The 3-month mortality rate for patients 80 and older with scores of 4 or greater was 93% (40/43 patients). Of patients assigned a score of 5, those with end stage renal disease had lower mortality than patients without end stage renal disease although the difference did not achieve statistical significance (n = 27; 25% vs 58%; p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: The Ventilator Allocation Score can accurately identify patients with high rates of short-term mortality. However, these high mortality patients only represent 27% of all the patients who died, limiting the utility of the score for allocation of scarce resources. The score may unfairly prioritize older patients and inadvertently exacerbate racial health disparities through the inclusion of specific comorbidities such as end stage renal disease. Triage frameworks that include age should be considered. Purposeful efforts must be taken to ensure that triage protocols do not perpetuate or exacerbate prevailing inequities. Further work on the allocation of scarce resources in critical care settings would benefit from consensus on the primary ethical objective.

Developing an Ethics Framework for Allocating Remdesivir in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

On May 1, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to allow use of the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir is an investigational drug studied in clinical trials for COVID-19 and is available to children and pregnant women through compassionate-use access but is not yet FDA approved. In early May, the US Department of Health and Human Services began to distribute remdesivir, donated by Gilead Sciences, Inc., to hospitals and state health departments for emergency use; multiple shipments have since been distributed. This process has raised questions of how remdesivir should be allocated. The Minnesota Department of Health has collaborated with the Minnesota COVID Ethics Collaborative and multiple clinical experts to issue an Ethical Framework for May 2020 Allocation of Remdesivir in the COVID-19 Pandemic. The framework builds on extensive ethical guidance developed for public health emergencies in Minnesota before the COVID-19 crisis. The Minnesota remdesivir allocation framework specifies an ethical approach to distributing the drug to facilities across the state and then among COVID-19 patients within each facility. This article describes the process of developing the framework and adjustments in the framework over time with emergence of new data, analyzes key issues addressed, and suggests next steps. Sharing this framework and the development process can encourage transparency and may be useful to other states formulating and refining their approach to remdesivir EUA allocation.