Variation in COVID-19 Resource Allocation Protocols and Potential Implementation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2021.1983667
Rupali Gandhi, Gina M Piscitello, William F Parker, Kelly Michelson
{"title":"Variation in COVID-19 Resource Allocation Protocols and Potential Implementation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.","authors":"Rupali Gandhi,&nbsp;Gina M Piscitello,&nbsp;William F Parker,&nbsp;Kelly Michelson","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2021.1983667","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Scarce resource allocation policies vary across the United States. Little is known about regional variation in resource allocation protocols and variation in their application. We sought to evaluate how Covid-19 scarce resource allocation policies vary throughout the Chicago metropolitan area and whether there are differences in policy application within hospitals when prioritizing hypothetical patients who need critical care resources.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two cross-sectional surveys were distributed to Chicago metropolitan area hospital representatives and triage officers. Survey responses and categorical variables are described by frequency of occurrence. Intra- and interhospital variation in ranking of hypothetical patients was assessed using Fleiss's Kappa coefficients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight Chicago-area hospitals responded to the survey assessing scarce resource allocation protocols (N = 8/18, response rate 44%). For hospitals willing to describe their ventilator allocation protocol (N = 7), most used the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (N = 6/7, 86%) and medical comorbidities (N = 4/7, 57%) for initial scoring of patients. A majority gave priority in initial scoring to pre-defined groups (N = 5/7, 71%), all discussed withdrawal of mechanical ventilation for adult patients (N = 7/7, 100%), and a minority had exclusion criteria (N = 3/7, 43%). Forty-nine triage officers from nine hospitals responded to the second survey (N = 9/10 hospitals, response rate 90%). Their rankings of hypothetical patients showed only slight agreement amongst all hospitals (Kappa 0.158) and fair agreement within two hospitals with the most respondents (Kappa 0.21 and 0.25). Almost half used tiebreakers to rank patients (N = 23/49, 47%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although most respondents from Chicago-area hospitals described policies for resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the substance and application of these protocols varied. There was little agreement when prioritizing hypothetical patients to receive scarce resources, even among people from the same hospital. Variations in resource allocation protocols and their application could lead to inequitable distribution of resources, further exacerbating community distrust and disparities in health.</p><p><p>Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1983667.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"12 4","pages":"266-275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9648102/pdf/nihms-1762842.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1983667","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Scarce resource allocation policies vary across the United States. Little is known about regional variation in resource allocation protocols and variation in their application. We sought to evaluate how Covid-19 scarce resource allocation policies vary throughout the Chicago metropolitan area and whether there are differences in policy application within hospitals when prioritizing hypothetical patients who need critical care resources.

Methods: Two cross-sectional surveys were distributed to Chicago metropolitan area hospital representatives and triage officers. Survey responses and categorical variables are described by frequency of occurrence. Intra- and interhospital variation in ranking of hypothetical patients was assessed using Fleiss's Kappa coefficients.

Results: Eight Chicago-area hospitals responded to the survey assessing scarce resource allocation protocols (N = 8/18, response rate 44%). For hospitals willing to describe their ventilator allocation protocol (N = 7), most used the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (N = 6/7, 86%) and medical comorbidities (N = 4/7, 57%) for initial scoring of patients. A majority gave priority in initial scoring to pre-defined groups (N = 5/7, 71%), all discussed withdrawal of mechanical ventilation for adult patients (N = 7/7, 100%), and a minority had exclusion criteria (N = 3/7, 43%). Forty-nine triage officers from nine hospitals responded to the second survey (N = 9/10 hospitals, response rate 90%). Their rankings of hypothetical patients showed only slight agreement amongst all hospitals (Kappa 0.158) and fair agreement within two hospitals with the most respondents (Kappa 0.21 and 0.25). Almost half used tiebreakers to rank patients (N = 23/49, 47%).

Conclusions: Although most respondents from Chicago-area hospitals described policies for resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the substance and application of these protocols varied. There was little agreement when prioritizing hypothetical patients to receive scarce resources, even among people from the same hospital. Variations in resource allocation protocols and their application could lead to inequitable distribution of resources, further exacerbating community distrust and disparities in health.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1983667.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2019冠状病毒病资源分配协议的差异及其在芝加哥大都会地区的潜在实施。
背景:美国各地的稀缺资源分配政策各不相同。关于资源分配协议的区域差异及其应用的差异,我们知之甚少。我们试图评估整个芝加哥大都市区Covid-19稀缺资源分配政策的差异,以及在优先考虑需要重症护理资源的假设患者时,医院内部的政策应用是否存在差异。方法:对芝加哥大都会区医院代表和分诊官员进行两项横断面调查。调查结果和分类变量由发生频率描述。使用Fleiss的Kappa系数评估医院内和医院间假设患者排名的变化。结果:8家芝加哥地区医院回应了评估稀缺资源分配方案的调查(N = 8/18,回复率44%)。对于愿意描述其呼吸机分配方案的医院(N = 7),大多数使用序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分(N = 6/7, 86%)和医疗合并症(N = 4/7, 57%)作为患者的初始评分。大多数文献在初始评分时优先考虑预先定义的组(N = 5/ 7,71%),所有文献都讨论了成人患者是否退出机械通气(N = 7/ 7,100%),少数文献有排除标准(N = 3/ 7,43%)。来自9家医院的49名分诊人员回应了第二次调查(N = 9/10家医院,回复率90%)。他们对假设患者的排名在所有医院之间只有轻微的一致(Kappa为0.158),而在两家医院(Kappa为0.21和0.25)之间的一致是公平的。几乎一半的患者使用决胜局对患者进行排名(N = 23/49, 47%)。结论:尽管来自芝加哥地区医院的大多数受访者描述了COVID-19大流行期间的资源分配政策,但这些协议的内容和应用各不相同。即使是来自同一家医院的人,在优先考虑假想的病人获得稀缺资源时,也没有达成一致意见。资源分配协议及其应用的差异可能导致资源分配不公平,进一步加剧社区不信任和保健方面的差距。本文的补充数据可在https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1983667上在线获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1