SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

The good, the bad and the ugly: pandemic priority decisions and triage.

Flaatten, H; Van Heerden, V; Jung, C; Beil, M; Leaver, S; Rhodes, A; Guidet, B; deLange, DW (2021) The good, the bad and the ugly: pandemic priority decisions and triage. J Med Ethics, 47 (12). e75. ISSN 1473-4257 https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106489
SGUL Authors: Rhodes, Andrew

[img]
Preview
PDF Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (271kB) | Preview

Abstract

In this analysis we discuss the change in criteria for triage of patients during three different phases of a pandemic like COVID-19, seen from the critical care point of view. Availability of critical care beds has become a hot topic, and in many countries, we have seen a huge increase in the provision of temporary intensive care bed capacity. However, there is a limit where the hospitals may run out of resources to provide critical care, which is heavily dependent on trained staff, just-in-time supply chains for clinical consumables and drugs and advanced equipment. In the first (good) phase, we can still do clinical prioritisation and decision-making as usual, based on the need for intensive care and prognostication: what are the odds for a good result with regard to survival and quality of life. In the next (bad phase), the resources are mostly available, but the system is stressed by many patients arriving over a short time period and auxiliary beds in different places in the hospital being used. We may have to abandon admittance of patients with doubtful prognosis. In the last (ugly) phase, usual medical triage and priority setting may not be sufficient to decrease inflow and there may not be enough intensive care unit beds available. In this phase different criteria must be applied using a utilitarian approach for triage. We argue that this is an important transition where society, and not physicians, must provide guidance to support triage that is no longer based on medical priorities alone.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Copyright information: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Keywords: allocation of health care resources, anaesthetics / anesthesiology, clinical ethics, epidemiology, health care for specific diseases/groups, 1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences, 2201 Applied Ethics, Applied Ethics
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS)
Academic Structure > Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute (MCS) > Cell Sciences (INCCCS)
Journal or Publication Title: J Med Ethics
ISSN: 1473-4257
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
29 November 2021Published
10 June 2020Published Online
31 May 2020Accepted
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0
PubMed ID: 32522814
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/112147
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106489

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item