Developing a Thai national critical care allocation guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review and stakeholder consultation.

BACKGROUND: At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Thailand had almost depleted its critical care resources, particularly intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators. This prompted the necessity to develop a national guideline for resource allocation. This paper describes the development process of a national guideline for critical resource allocation in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The guideline development process consisted of three steps: (1) rapid review of existing rationing guidelines and literature; (2) interviews of Thai clinicians experienced in caring for COVID-19 cases; and (3) multi-stakeholder consultations. At steps 1 and 2, data was synthesized and categorized using a thematic and content analysis approach, and this guided the formulation of the draft guideline. Within step 3, the draft Thai critical care allocation guideline was debated and finalized before entering the policy-decision stage. RESULTS: Three-order prioritization criteria consisting of (1) clinical prognosis using four tools (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, frailty assessment and cognitive impairment assessment), (2) number of life-years saved and (3) social usefulness were proposed by the research team based on literature reviews and interviews. At consultations, stakeholders rejected using life-years as a criterion due to potential age and gender discrimination, as well as social utility due to a concern it would foster public distrust, as this judgement can be arbitrary. It was agreed that the attending physician is required to be the decision-maker in the Thai medico-legal context, while a patient review committee would play an advisory role. Allocation decisions are to be documented for transparency, and no appealing mechanism is to be applied. This guideline will be triggered only when demand exceeds supply after the utmost efforts to mobilize surge capacity. Once implemented, it is applicable to all patients, COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, requiring critical care resources prior to ICU admission and during ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS: The guideline development process for the allocation of critical care resources in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand was informed by scientific evidence, medico-legal context, existing norms and societal values to reduce risk of public distrust given the sensitive nature of the issue and ethical dilemmas of the guiding principle, though it was conducted at record speed. Our lessons can provide an insight for the development of similar prioritization guidelines, especially in other low- and middle-income countries.

Prioritizing critical-care resources in response to COVID-19: lessons from the development of Thailand's Triage protocol.

As COVID-19 ravages the world, many countries are faced with the grim reality of not having enough critical-care resources to go around. Knowing what could be in store, the Thai Ministry of Public Health called for the creation of an explicit protocol to determine how these resources are to be rationed in the situation of demand exceeding supply. This paper shares the experience of developing triage criteria and a mechanism for prioritizing intensive care unit resources in a middle-income country with the potential to be applied to other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faced with a similar (if not more of a) challenge when responding to the global pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, this locally developed guideline would be among the first of its kind from an LMIC setting. In summary, the experience from the Thai protocol development highlights three important lessons. First, stakeholder consultation and public engagement are crucial steps to ensure the protocol reflects the priorities of society and to maintain public trust in the health system. Second, all bodies and actions proposed in the protocol must not conflict with existing laws to ensure smooth implementation and adherence by professionals. Last, all components of the protocol must be compatible with the local context including medical culture, physician-patient relationship, and religious and societal norms.

Multisectoral Actions for Health: Challenges and Opportunities in Complex Policy Environments.

Multisectoral actions for health, defined as actions undertaken by non-health sectors to protect the health of the population, are essential in the context of inter-linkages between three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. These multisectoral actions can address the social and economic factors that influence the health of a population at the local, national, and global levels. This editorial identifies the challenges, opportunities and capacity development for effective multisectoral actions for health in a complex policy environment. The root causes of the challenges lie in poor governance such as entrenched political and administrative corruption, widespread clientelism, lack of citizen voice, weak social capital, lack of trust and lack of respect for human rights. This is further complicated by the lack of government effectiveness caused by poor capacity for strong public financial management and low levels of transparency and accountability which leads to corruption. The absence of or rapid changes in government policies, and low salary in relation to living standards result in migration out of qualified staff. Tobacco, alcohol and sugary drink industries are major risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and had interfered with health policy through regulatory capture and potential law suits against the government. Opportunities still exist. Some World Health Assembly (WHA) and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions are both considered as external driving forces for intersectoral actions for health. In addition, Thailand National Health Assembly under the National Health Act is another tool providing opportunity to form trust among stakeholders from different sectors. Capacity development at individual, institutional and system level to generate evidence and ensure it is used by multisectoral agencies is as critical as strengthening the health literacy of people and the overall good governance of a country.