When do caregivers ignore the veil of ignorance? An empirical study on medical triage decision-making

Putting ICU triage guidelines into practice: A simulation study using observations and interviews

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted many countries to formulate guidelines on how to deal with a worst-case scenario in which the number of patients needing intensive care unit (ICU) care exceeds the number of available beds. This study aims to explore the experiences of triage teams when triaging fictitious patients with the Dutch triage guidelines. It provides an overview of the factors that influence decision-making when performing ICU triage with triage guidelines.

METHODS

Eight triage teams from four hospitals were given files of fictitious patients needing intensive care and instructed to triage these patients. Sessions were observed and audio-recorded. Four focus group interviews with triage team members were held to reflect on the sessions and the Dutch guidelines. The results were analyzed by inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The Dutch triage guidelines were the main basis for making triage decisions. However, some teams also allowed their own considerations (outside of the guidelines) to play a role when making triage decisions, for example to help avoid using non-medical criteria such as prioritization based on age group. Group processes also played a role in decision-making: triage choices can be influenced by the triagists' opinion on the guidelines and the carefulness with which they are applied. Intensivists, being most experienced in prognostication of critical illness, often had the most decisive role during triage sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the Dutch triage guidelines is feasible, but there were some inconsistencies in prioritization between teams that may be undesirable. ICU triage guideline writers should consider which aspects of their criteria might, when applied in practice, lead to inconsistencies or ethically questionable prioritization of patients. Practical training of triage team members in applying the guidelines, including explanation of the rationale underlying the triage criteria, might improve the willingness and ability of triage teams to follow the guidelines closely.

Caregivers' perceptions of compulsory treatment of physical illness in involuntarily psychiatric hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Physical morbidity is rife among patients with serious mental illness. When they are involuntarily hospitalized and even treated, they may still refuse treatment for physical illness leading clinicians to wonder about the ethics of coercing such treatments.

RESEARCH AIM

This survey study explored psychiatric caregivers' perceptions on whether compulsory treatment of physical illness is legal and whether it is justifiable in patients with serious mental illness and under what circumstances.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A questionnaire that included two case vignettes of an involuntarily hospitalized psychiatric patient with diabetes refusing treatment with insulin for various reasons. The cases differed in terms of diabetes severity. Participants answered questions regarding the appropriateness of involuntary treatment.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

Psychiatric medical doctors and nurses working in a mental health center. (N = 89, 50 female, ages 26-66).

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The study was approved by the Medical Centre Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the University Ethics Committee. The respondents' anonymity was kept. Participation was voluntary and consent was obtained.

RESULTS

The severity of the patient's medical condition and their reason for refusing treatment were associated with participants' willingness to give insulin despite patient objection [(F(1, 87) = 49.41, p < .01; (F(1, 87) = 33.44, p < .01), respectively]. Participants were more inclined to support compulsory treatment if the patient's refusal was "illness-oriented" (i.e. directly related to psychiatric illness). Participants presented diverse views regarding the perceived legality of compulsory treatment of physical illness in such situations (illegal 63.09%; legal 23.8%; 13% unsure). The majority (53.5%-55.3%) of those who thought it was illegal supported compulsory treatment in high-severity, illness-oriented refusal situations.

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of the medical condition and the reason for treatment refusal influence psychiatric caregivers' willingness to provide compulsory treatment for physical illness in involuntary hospitalized psychiatric patients. Beyond the legal framework, ethical guidelines for these situations are warranted, while decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.