Should age matter in COVID-19 triage? A deliberative study

The COVID-19 pandemic put a large burden on many healthcare systems, causing fears about resource scarcity and triage. Several COVID-19 guidelines included age as an explicit factor and practices of both triage and 'anticipatory triage' likely limited access to hospital care for elderly patients, especially those in care homes. To ensure the legitimacy of triage guidelines, which affect the public, it is important to engage the public's moral intuitions. Our study aimed to explore general public views in the UK on the role of age, and related factors like frailty and quality of life, in triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. We held online deliberative workshops with members of the general public (n = 22). Participants were guided through a deliberative process to maximise eliciting informed and considered preferences. Participants generally accepted the need for triage but strongly rejected 'fair innings' and 'life projects' principles as justifications for age-based allocation. They were also wary of the 'maximise life-years' principle, preferring to maximise the number of lives rather than life years saved. Although they did not arrive at a unified recommendation of one principle, a concern for three core principles and values eventually emerged: equality, efficiency and vulnerability. While these remain difficult to fully respect at once, they captured a considered, multifaceted consensus: utilitarian considerations of efficiency should be tempered with a concern for equality and vulnerability. This 'triad' of ethical principles may be a useful structure to guide ethical deliberation as societies negotiate the conflicting ethical demands of triage. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

COVID-19 and the Mental Capacity Act in care homes: Perspectives from capacity professionals.

This study explores the experiences of professionals who worked with care home residents with impaired mental capacity in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. It explores (i) how competing risks were balanced and (ii) how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) functioned in care homes under pandemic conditions, with particular focus on its associated Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy (IMCA) systems. Between March and May 2021, we held an online survey and five focus groups aimed at professionals who worked in or with care homes during the pandemic. The study explored issues pertaining to residents with impaired mental capacity, alongside several other topics on which we report elsewhere. For this paper, we filtered data to only include responses from 'capacity professionals'. The resulting sample comprised 120 (out of 266) survey participants and 18 (out of 22) focus group participants. We performed manifest content analysis on the filtered data and found that (1) participants reported a 'massive discrepancy' between the ways different care homes balanced the risk of COVID-19 infection with the risks associated with severe restrictions. (2) Some suggested this was due to vague guidance, as well as care home type and size. Participants told us the pandemic (3) obstructed smooth operation of statutory safeguards designed to protect residents' human rights and (4) resulted in confusion about the remit of the MCA during a public health crisis. Our findings raise concerns about the impact of pandemic-related measures upon care home residents with impaired mental capacity. We urge further exploration and analysis of (a) the variability and inconsistency of restrictions applied at care homes, (b) the strain placed on key safeguards associated with the MCA, (c) uncertainty about the remit of the MCA during a public health crisis and (d) the human rights implications hereof.

Should age matter in COVID-19 triage? A deliberative study

The COVID-19 pandemic put a large burden on many healthcare systems, causing fears about resource scarcity and triage. Several COVID-19 guidelines included age as an explicit factor and practices of both triage and ‘anticipatory triage’ likely limited access to hospital care for elderly patients, especially those in care homes. To ensure the legitimacy of triage guidelines, which affect the public, it is important to engage the public’s moral intuitions. Our study aimed to explore general public views in the UK on the role of age, and related factors like frailty and quality of life, in triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. We held online deliberative workshops with members of the general public (n=22). Participants were guided through a deliberative process to maximise eliciting informed and considered preferences. Participants generally accepted the need for triage but strongly rejected ‘fair innings’ and ‘life projects’ principles as justifications for age-based allocation. They were also wary of the ‘maximise life-years’ principle, preferring to maximise the number of lives rather than life years saved. Although they did not arrive at a unified recommendation of one principle, a concern for three core principles and values eventually emerged: equality, efficiency and vulnerability. While these remain difficult to fully respect at once, they captured a considered, multifaceted consensus: utilitarian considerations of efficiency should be tempered with a concern for equality and vulnerability. This ‘triad’ of ethical principles may be a useful structure to guide ethical deliberation as societies negotiate the conflicting ethical demands of triage.

Human rights and COVID-19 triage: a comment on the Bath protocol.

In their discussion paper of November 2020, Cook et al present a draft protocol for navigating circumstances in which emergency services are overwhelmed. Their paper suggests that COVID-related triage decisions should be based on clinical assessment, patient and family consultation, and a range of ethical considerations. In this response, we note that the protocol exhibits an ambiguity that is likely to result in irresolvable dilemmas when put into practice. This ambiguity is exemplified in the paper's prime ethical imperative (to 'save more lives and more years of life'), which takes the form of an undefined conjunction whose practical implications are left unspecified. We see this ambiguity in the prime imperative as one manifestation of a broader set of tensions in the protocol. We show that the discipline of human rights provides an essential supplement to the ethical framework on which Cook and colleagues rely, providing a framework for understanding and working through triage dilemmas involving age, discrimination and equality.