Article Text
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.
- allocation of health care resources
- anaesthetics / anesthesiology
- clinical ethics
- epidemiology
- health care for specific diseases/groups
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/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors All authors share the idea of the manuscript, HF drafted the manuscript and all coauthors participated in discussion and editing.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Who should get the scarce ICU bed? The US public’s view on triage in the time of COVID-19
- Non-COVID-19 intensive care admissions during the pandemic: a multinational registry-based study
- Surgeons in surge — the versatility of the acute care surgeon: outcomes of COVID-19 ICU patients in a community hospital where all ICU patients are managed by surgical intensivists
- How do we fight COVID-19? Military medical actions in the war against the COVID-19 pandemic in France
- Characteristics, complications and outcomes among 1549 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in a secondary hospital in Madrid, Spain: a retrospective case series study
- Survival of mechanically ventilated ward patients and association with organisational factors: a multicentre prospective study
- Validating a clinical laboratory parameter-based deisolation algorithm for patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit using viability PCR: the CoLaIC multicentre cohort study protocol
- National health system cuts and triage decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and Spain: ethical implications
- Managing intensive care admissions when there are not enough beds during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review
- Revisiting the equity debate in COVID-19: ICU is no panacea