30 - Disaster Risk Management

Disaster risk management encompasses a holistic approach to all hazards throughout the disaster cycle of prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Research during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted numerous shortfalls globally in disaster preparedness and response within the health care setting. The results of multiple studies suggest that a lack of preparedness and high vulnerability remain significant challenges for health care organizations during disasters. Risk may also need to be reexamined in light of the increasing frequency, duration, and intensity of crisis events. Rather than focusing on an all-hazards approach to disaster risk management, it may be prudent to consider the top hazards an organization may face.

Avoiding Crisis Conditions in the Healthcare Infrastructure: 2 Case Studies in Statewide Collaboration.

In fall 2020, COVID-19 infections accelerated across the United States. For many states, a surge in COVID-19 cases meant planning for the allocation of scarce resources. Crisis standards of care planning focuses on maintaining high-quality clinical care amid extreme operating conditions. One of the primary goals of crisis standards of care planning is to use all preventive measures available to avoid reaching crisis conditions and the complex triage decisionmaking involved therein. Strategies to stay out of crisis must respond to the actual experience of people on the frontlines, or the "ground truth," to ensure efforts to increase critical care bed numbers and augment staff, equipment, supplies, and medications to provide an effective response to a public health emergency. Successful management of a surge event where healthcare needs exceed capacity requires coordinated strategies for scarce resource allocation. In this article, we examine the ground truth challenges encountered in response efforts during the fall surge of 2020 for 2 states-Nebraska and California-and the strategies each state used to enable healthcare facilities to stay out of crisis standards of care. Through these 2 cases, we identify key tools deployed to reduce surge and barriers to coordinated statewide support of the healthcare infrastructure. Finally, we offer considerations for operationalizing key tools to alleviate surge and recommendations for stronger statewide coordination in future public health emergencies.

Amplifying patient voices amid pandemic: Perspectives on tracheostomy care, communication, and connection.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate perspectives of patients, family members, caregivers (PFC), and healthcare professionals (HCP) on tracheostomy care during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The cross-sectional survey investigating barriers and facilitators to tracheostomy care was collaboratively developed by patients, family members, nurses, speech-language pathologists, respiratory care practitioners, physicians, and surgeons. The survey was distributed to the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative's learning community, and responses were analyzed. RESULTS: Survey respondents (n = 191) from 17 countries included individuals with a tracheostomy (85 [45 %]), families/caregivers (43 [22 %]), and diverse HCP (63 [33.0 %]). Overall, 94 % of respondents reported concern that patients with tracheostomy were at increased risk of critical illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19; 93 % reported fear or anxiety. With respect to prioritization of care, 38 % of PFC versus 16 % of HCP reported concern that patients with tracheostomies might not be valued or prioritized (p = 0.002). Respondents also differed in fear of contracting COVID-19 (69 % PFC vs. 49 % HCP group, p = 0.009); concern for hospitalization (55.5 % PFC vs. 27 % HCP, p < 0.001); access to medical personnel (34 % PFC vs. 14 % HCP, p = 0.005); and concern about canceled appointments (62 % PFC vs. 41 % HCP, p = 0.01). Respondents from both groups reported severe stress and fatigue, sleep deprivation, lack of breaks, and lack of support (70 % PFC vs. 65 % HCP, p = 0.54). Virtual telecare seldom met perceived needs. CONCLUSION: PFC with a tracheostomy perceived most risks more acutely than HCP in this global sample. Broad stakeholder engagement is necessary to achieve creative, patient-driven solutions to maintain connection, communication, and access for patients with a tracheostomy.

Patient Information Items Needed to Guide the Allocation of Scarce Life-Sustaining Resources: A Delphi Study of Multidisciplinary Experts.

OBJECTIVE: Plans for allocation of scarce life-sustaining resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic often include triage teams, but operational details are lacking, including what patient information is needed to make triage decisions. METHODS: A Delphi study among Washington state disaster preparedness experts was performed to develop a list of patient information items needed for triage team decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts proposed and rated their agreement with candidate information items during asynchronous Delphi rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement. Qualitative analysis was used to describe considerations arising in this deliberation. A timed simulation was performed to evaluate feasibility of data collection from the electronic health record. RESULTS: Over 3 asynchronous Delphi rounds, 50 experts reached consensus on 24 patient information items, including patients' age, severe or end-stage comorbidities, the reason for and timing of admission, measures of acute respiratory failure, and clinical trajectory. Experts weighed complex considerations around how information items could support effective prognostication, consistency, accuracy, minimizing bias, and operationalizability of the triage process. Data collection took a median of 227 seconds (interquartile range = 205, 298) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Experts achieved consensus on patient information items that were necessary and appropriate for informing triage teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ethics of Unilateral Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders for COVID-19 Patients.

This paper examines several decision-making models that have been proposed to limit the use of CPR for COVID-19 patients. My main concern will be to assess proposals for the implementation of unilateral DNRs - i.e., orders to withhold CPR without the agreement of patients or their surrogates.

Drastic changes in the practice of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article discusses drastic changes in the practice of end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It reviews the ethical dilemmas of individual autonomy versus societal justice, human beneficence versus public health non-maleficence that arose during the pandemic due to prolonged, high acutity,= critical illness in the setting of a highly contageous respiratory virus, protective personal equipment shortages,m crisis standards of care to distribute scarce medical resources, and changes in interactions between treating clinicians, patients, and visitors. The lessons learned during the pandemic response will directly inform and impact the appraoch to future pandemic events.

The Crisis in Standards of Care.

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, debates have waged about "crisis standards of care" ("CSC")-the guidelines for the allocation of resources if those resources are too scarce to meet the needs of all patients. The Hastings Center Report's September-October 2021 issue features a collection of pieces on this debate. In the lead article, MaryKatherine Gaurke and colleagues object to the idea that the allocation of scarce resources should aim to save the most "life-years," arguing instead that the objective should be to save the most lives. Gaurke et al. assert that it is only theorists who have favored the life-years strategy; the public has not-or at least, there is no good evidence that the public has. This claim is elaborated in the article by Alex Rajczi and colleagues, who argue that identifying and applying the public's will-a process they call "political reasoning"-is the core work in developing CSC. Five commentaries-two coauthored, by Douglas B. White and Bernardo Lo and by Anuj B. Mehta and Matthew K. Wynia, and three solo authored, by Govind Persad, Virginia A. Brown, and Robert D. Truog-offer further arguments about and insights into CSC.

Crisis Standards of Care-More Than Just a Thought Experiment?

As described in two articles in the September-October 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report, most crisis standards of care (CSC) plans include triage algorithms to guide the allocation of critical care resources to some patients and not others under conditions of extreme scarcity. The plans also include other important CSC strategies, but it is the notion of rationing scarce resources via triage that especially captured the imaginations of ethicists. Vigorous arguments have arisen over whether triage algorithms should be designed to prioritize patients based on predictions of short-, near-, or long-term survival. Additionally, there are ongoing debates about the ability of current algorithms to estimate patient survival accurately enough to be useful in triage and about the role of values like equity in triage protocols. Relatively few debates have noted, however, that while the development of CSC triage protocols has been based in medicine, public health, and ethics, the activation of CSC plans remains a political decision.

Ventilator Allocation Protocols: Sophisticated Bioethics for an Unworkable Strategy.

I was a member of the Massachusetts advisory working group that wrote the Commonwealth's crisis standards of care guidance for the Covid-19 pandemic, and I was proud of the work we did, thinking carefully about whether age should matter and whether priority should be given to essential workers if there was a scarcity of medical resources, about whether protocols should address issues of structural racism, and so forth. But as a critical care physician, I have concluded that, no matter how sophisticated the ethical analysis, the fundamental approach we proposed was flawed and virtually impossible to implement. All the existing allocation protocols that states developed are based on the assumption that clinicians will be faced with the task of selecting which patients will be offered a ventilator from among a population of patients who are each in need of one. The protocols then assign patients a priority category, and the protocols specify "tie-breaking" criteria to be used when necessary. The problem with this approach for ventilator allocation is that it has no relationship whatsoever to what happens in the real world.

The University of California Crisis Standards of Care: Public Reasoning for Socially Responsible Medicine.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the University of California convened the University of California Critical Care Bioethics Working Group, a team of twenty individuals tasked with developing a set of triage procedures. This article highlights several crucial components of the UC procedures and describes the reasoning behind them. The recommendations and the reasoning in the UC protocol are distinctive because of the emphasis the working group placed on grounding its decisions on the public's preferences for triage protocols. To highlight the distinctiveness of the recommendations and reasoning, this article contrasts the UC procedures with the triage procedures known as the "Pittsburgh framework." Among the specific topics discussed are age discrimination, disability discrimination, the prioritization of critical workers for scarce resources, and triage priority for pregnant patients.

Rationing With Respect to Age During a Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis of State Pandemic Preparedness Plans.

BACKGROUND: Faced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration. RESULTS: Thirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy. INTERPRETATION: Guidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.

Ruthless Utilitarianism? COVID-19 State Triage Protocols May Subject Patients to Racial Discrimination and Providers to Legal Liability.

As the coronavirus pandemic intensified, many communities in the United States experienced shortages of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other medical supplies and treatments. Currently, there is no single national response to provide guidance on allocation of scarce health care resources. Accordingly, states have formulated various "triage protocols" to prioritize those who will receive care and those who may not have the same access to health care services when the population demand exceeds the supply. Triage protocols address general concepts of "fairness" under accepted medical ethics rules and the consensus is that limited medical resources "should be allocated to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people."1 The actual utility of this utilitarian ethics approach is questionable, however, leaving many questions about what is "fair" unanswered. Saving as many people as possible during a health care crisis is a laudable goal but not at the expense of ignoring patients's legal rights, which are not suspended during the crisis. This Article examines the triage protocols from six states to determine whose rights are being recognized and whose rights are being denied, answering the pivotal question: If there is potential for disparate impact of facially neutral state triage protocols against Black Americans and other ethnic groups, is this legally actionable discrimination? This may be a case of first impression for the courts to resolve."[B]lack Americans are 3.5 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than [W]hite Americans … . Latinx people are almost twice as likely to die of the disease, compared with [W]hite people." 2 "Our civil rights laws protect the equal dignity of every human life from ruthless utilitarianism … . HHS is committed to leaving no one behind during an emergency, and this guidance is designed to help health care providers meet that goal." - Roger Severino, Office of Civil Rights Director, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3.

Rapid deployment of a community engagement study and educational trial via social media: implementation of the UC-COVID study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated adoption of scarce resource allocation (SRA) policies, we sought to rapidly deploy a novel survey to ascertain community values and preferences for SRA and to test the utility of a brief intervention to improve knowledge of and values alignment with a new SRA policy. Given social distancing and precipitous evolution of the pandemic, Internet-enabled recruitment was deemed the best method to engage a community-based sample. We quantify the efficiency and acceptability of this Internet-based recruitment for engaging a trial cohort and describe the approach used for implementing a health-related trial entirely online using off-the-shelf tools. METHODS: We recruited 1971 adult participants (≥ 18 years) via engagement with community partners and organizations and outreach through direct and social media messaging. We quantified response rate and participant characteristics of our sample, examine sample representativeness, and evaluate potential non-response bias. RESULTS: Recruitment was similarly derived from direct referral from partner organizations and broader social media based outreach, with extremely low study entry from organic (non-invited) search activity. Of social media platforms, Facebook was the highest yield recruitment source. Bot activity was present but minimal and identifiable through meta-data and engagement behavior. Recruited participants differed from broader populations in terms of sex, ethnicity, and education, but had similar prevalence of chronic conditions. Retention was satisfactory, with entrance into the first follow-up survey for 61% of those invited. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that rapid recruitment into a longitudinal intervention trial via social media is feasible, efficient, and acceptable. Recruitment in conjunction with community partners representing target populations, and with outreach across multiple platforms, is recommended to optimize sample size and diversity. Trial implementation, engagement tracking, and retention are feasible with off-the-shelf tools using preexisting platforms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373135 . Registered on May 4, 2020.

Performance of crisis standards of care guidelines in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the United States.

Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing their population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation drawn from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID) multicenter cohort, we test the following three approaches to CSC algorithms: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We find that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to white patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities.

Applying crisis standards of care to critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: Does race/ethnicity affect triage scoring?

OBJECTIVE: Given the variability in crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated the racial and ethnic differences in prioritization between 3 different CSC triage policies (New York, Massachusetts, USA), as well as a first come, first served (FCFS) approach, using a single patient population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with intensive care unit (ICU) needs at a tertiary hospital on its peak COVID-19 ICU census day. We used medical record data to calculate a CSC score under 3 criteria: New York, Massachusetts with full comorbidity list (Massachusetts1), and MA with a modified comorbidity list (Massachusetts2). The CSC scores, as well as FCFS, determined which patients were eligible to receive critical care under 2 scarcity scenarios: 50 versus 100 ICU bed capacity. We assessed the association between race/ethnicity and eligibility for critical care with logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 211 patients, 139 (66%) were male, 95 (45%) were Hispanic, 23 (11%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 69 (33%) were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic patients had the fewest comorbidities. Assuming a 50 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had significantly higher odds of receiving critical care services across all CSC guidelines, except FCFS. However, assuming a 100 ICU bed capacity, Hispanic patients had greater odds of receiving critical care services under only the Massachusetts2 guidelines (odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.09 to 3.85). CONCLUSION: Varying CSC guidelines differentially affect racial and ethnic minority groups with regard to risk stratification. The equity implications of CSC guidelines require thorough investigation before CSC guidelines are implemented.

Emergency Physician Twitter Use in the COVID-19 Pandemic as a Potential Predictor of Impending Surge: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The early conversations on social media by emergency physicians offer a window into the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational study of emergency physician Twitter use details how the health care crisis has influenced emergency physician discourse online and how this discourse may have use as a harbinger of ensuing surge. METHODS: Followers of the three main emergency physician professional organizations were identified using Twitter's application programming interface. They and their followers were included in the study if they identified explicitly as US-based emergency physicians. Statuses, or tweets, were obtained between January 4, 2020, when the new disease was first reported, and December 14, 2020, when vaccination first began. Original tweets underwent sentiment analysis using the previously validated Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner (VADER) tool as well as topic modeling using latent Dirichlet allocation unsupervised machine learning. Sentiment and topic trends were then correlated with daily change in new COVID-19 cases and inpatient bed utilization. RESULTS: A total of 3463 emergency physicians produced 334,747 unique English-language tweets during the study period. Out of 3463 participants, 910 (26.3%) stated that they were in training, and 466 of 902 (51.7%) participants who provided their gender identified as men. Overall tweet volume went from a pre-March 2020 mean of 481.9 (SD 72.7) daily tweets to a mean of 1065.5 (SD 257.3) daily tweets thereafter. Parameter and topic number tuning led to 20 tweet topics, with a topic coherence of 0.49. Except for a week in June and 4 days in November, discourse was dominated by the health care system (45,570/334,747, 13.6%). Discussion of pandemic response, epidemiology, and clinical care were jointly found to moderately correlate with COVID-19 hospital bed utilization (Pearson r=0.41), as was the occurrence of "covid," "coronavirus," or "pandemic" in tweet texts (r=0.47). Momentum in COVID-19 tweets, as demonstrated by a sustained crossing of 7- and 28-day moving averages, was found to have occurred on an average of 45.0 (SD 12.7) days before peak COVID-19 hospital bed utilization across the country and in the four most contributory states. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 Twitter discussion among emergency physicians correlates with and may precede the rising of hospital burden. This study, therefore, begins to depict the extent to which the ongoing pandemic has affected the field of emergency medicine discourse online and suggests a potential avenue for understanding predictors of surge.

Reciprocity and Liability Protections during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, as resources dwindled, clinicians, health care institutions, and policymakers have expressed concern about potential legal liability for following crisis standards of care (CSC) plans. Although there is no robust empirical research to demonstrate that liability protections actually influence physician behavior, we argue that limited liability protections for health care professionals who follow established CSC plans may instead be justified by reliance on the principle of reciprocity. Expecting physicians to do something they know will harm their patients causes moral distress and suffering that may leave lasting scars. Limited liability shields are both appropriate and proportionate to the risk physicians are being asked to take in such circumstances. Under certain narrow circumstances, it remains unclear that the standard of care is sufficiently flexible to protect physicians from liability. Given this uncertainty, the likelihood that physicians would be sued for such an act, and their desire for such immunity, this limited protection is morally legitimate.

The Treatment of Disability under Crisis Standards of Care: An Empirical and Normative Analysis of Change over Time during COVID-19.

CONTEXT: COVID-19 has prompted debates between bioethicists and disability activists about Crisis Standards of Care plans (CSCs), triage protocols determining the allocation of scarce lifesaving care. METHODS: We examine CSCs in 35 states and code how they approach disability, comparing states that have revised their plans over time to those that have not. We offer ethical and legal analyses evaluating to what extent changes to state policy aligned with disability rights law and ethics during the early pandemic and subsequently as stakeholder engagement grew. FINDINGS: While disability rights views were not well represented in CSCs that were not updated or updated early in the pandemic, states that revised their plans later in the pandemic were more aligned with advocate priorities. However, many CSCs continue to include concerning provisions, especially the reliance on long-term survival, which implicates considerations of both disability rights and racial justice. CONCLUSIONS: The disability rights movement's successes in influencing state triage policy should inform future CSCs and set the stage for further work on how stakeholders influence bioethics policy debates. We offer thoughts for examining bioethics policy making reflecting the processes by which activists seek policy change and the tension policy makers face between expert delegation and mediating values conflicts.