Ethics of reallocating ventilators in the covid-19 pandemic

Clinical Ethics Consultation During the First COVID-19 Pandemic Surge at an Academic Medical Center: A Mixed Methods Analysis

While a significant literature has appeared discussing theoretical ethical concerns regarding COVID-19, particularly regarding resource prioritization, as well as a number of personal reflections on providing patient care during the early stages of the pandemic, systematic analysis of the actual ethical issues involving patient care during this time is limited. This single-center retrospective cohort mixed methods study of ethics consultations during the first surge of the COVID 19 pandemic in Massachusetts between March 15, 2020 through June 15, 2020 aim to fill this gap. Results indicate that there was no significant difference in the median number of monthly consultation cases during the first COVID-19 surge compared to the same period the year prior and that the characteristics of the ethics consults during the COVID-19 surge and same period the year prior were also similar. Through inductive analysis, we identified four themes related to ethics consults during the first COVID-19 surge including (1) prognostic difficulty for COVID-19 positive patients, (2) challenges related to visitor restrictions, (3) end of life scenarios, and (4) family members who were also positive for COVID-19. Cases were complex and often aligned with multiple themes. These patient case-related sources of ethical issues were managed against the backdrop of intense systemic ethical issues and a near lockdown of daily life. Healthcare ethics consultants can learn from this experience to enhance training to be ready for future disasters.

Survival Impact of an On-Site Medicalization Program in the Control of COVID-19 Outbreaks in 11 Nursing Homes

BACKGROUND

The elderly admitted to nursing homes have especially suffered the havoc of the COVID-19 pandemic since most of them are not prepared to face such health problems.

METHODS

An innovative coordinated on-site medicalization program (MP) in response to a sizeable COVID-19 outbreak in three consecutive waves was deployed, sharing coordination and resources among primary care, the referral hospital, and the eleven residences. The objectives were providing the best possible medical care to residents in their environment, avoiding dehumanization and loneliness of hospital admission, and reducing the saturation of hospitals and the risk of spreading the infection. The main outcomes were a composite endpoint of survival or optimal palliative care (SOPC), survival, and referral to the hospital.

RESULTS

587 of 1199 (49%) residents were infected, of whom 123 (21%) died. Patients diagnosed before the start of the MP presented SOPC, survival, and referrals to the hospital of 83%, 74%, and 22.4%, opposite to 96%, 84%, and 10.6% of patients diagnosed while the MP was set up. The SOPC was independently associated with an MP (OR 3.4 [1.6-7.2]).

CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 outbreak, a coordinated MP successfully obtained a better rate of SOPC while simultaneously reducing the need for hospital admissions, combining optimal medical management with a more compassionate and humanistic approach in older people.

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.

Ethical challenges faced by healthcare workers in pediatric oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study examined ethical challenges reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in a large Australian pediatric oncology center during a period of strict COVID-19 restrictions.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 HCPs who provided pediatric cancer care during the pandemic in 2020, during strict lockdown periods. Interviews examined the difficulties they faced, as well as their own ethical evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 policies on oncology care. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

HCPs faced several challenges, primarily originating from hospital restrictions, which led to changes in usual clinical practices. These challenges included delivering care with personal protective equipment (PPE), the impact of a one-parent visitation policy, changes in psychosocial and allied health services, and COVID-19 swabbing policies. Overall, there was consensus from participants that hospital restrictions were justified and, while difficult, HCPs simply had to provide the best care possible given the circumstances. However, participants described decreased capacity to deliver holistic patient care and, in some instances, a tendency to avoid ethical reflection. Lastly, there was a consistent theme of shame and sense of responsibility underlying some participants' anxiety around inadvertently transmitting COVID-19 to immunocompromised patients.

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that many staff felt unease at the disruptions in patient care due to COVID-19 restrictions. Some HCPs indicated a degree of moral distress, with a possibility of moral injury among some HCPs. A focus on ethical recovery could assist in preventing any ongoing difficulties among HCPs because of their experiences.

Lessons from the frontline: Documenting the experiences of Pacific emergency care clinicians responding to the COVID-19 pandemic

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across the Pacific region have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and emergency care (EC) clinicians have been on the frontline of response efforts. Their responsibilities have extended from triage and clinical management of patients with COVID-19 to health system leadership and coordination. This has exposed EC clinicians to a range of ethical and operational challenges.This paper describes the context and methodology of a rapid, collaborative, qualitative research project that explored the experiences of EC clinicians in Pacific LMICs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted in three phases, with data obtained from online regional EC support forums, key informant interviews and focus group discussions. A phenomenological approach was adopted, incorporating a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Research findings, reported in other manuscripts in this collection, will inform multi-sectoral efforts to improve health system preparedness for future public health emergencies.

Funding

Epidemic Ethics/World Health Organization (WHO) initiative, supported by Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Grant 214711/Z/18/Z (Phases 1 and 2A) and an Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Foundation International Development Fund Grant.

Helmet-Noninvasive Ventilation for Hospitalized Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: Has Vaccination and the New Variants Changed Evidence?

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a technique for breathing support that significantly improves gas exchange and vital signs, reducing intubation and mortality rates. Helmets, unlike facemasks, allow for longer-term treatment and better ventilation, also being more cost-effective. As of today, we have found no reviews addressing this topic. This review aims to identify, map, and describe the characteristics of the use of noninvasive ventilation through helmet interface in critically ill COVID-19 adult patients hospitalized in acute care settings throughout the multiple moments that defined the COVID-19 pandemic. This scoping review will follow the methodology for scoping reviews proposed by JBI. A set of relevant electronic databases will be searched using terms such as COVID-19, helmet, and noninvasive ventilation. Two reviewers will independently perform the study selection regarding their eligibility. Data extraction will be accomplished using a researcher’s developed tool considering the review questions. Findings will be presented in tables and a narrative description that aligns with the review’s objective. This scoping review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods studies and systematic review designs for inclusion, focusing on the use of helmet on critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in acute care settings.

Rationing, racism and justice: advancing the debate around 'colourblind' COVID-19 ventilator allocation

Withholding or withdrawing life-saving ventilators can become necessary when resources are insufficient. In the USA, such rationing has unique social justice dimensions. Structural elements of dominant allocation frameworks simultaneously advantage white communities, and disadvantage Black communities-who already experience a disproportionate burden of COVID-19-related job losses, hospitalisations and mortality. Using the example of New Jersey's Crisis Standard of Care policy, we describe how dominant rationing guidance compounds for many Black patients prior unfair structural disadvantage, chiefly due to the way creatinine and life expectancy are typically considered.We outline six possible policy options towards a more just approach: improving diversity in decision processes, adjusting creatinine scores, replacing creatinine, dropping creatinine, finding alternative measures, adding equity weights and rejecting the dominant model altogether. We also contrast these options with making no changes, which is not a neutral default, but in separate need of justification, despite a prominent claim that it is simply based on 'objective medical knowledge'. In the regrettable absence of fair federal guidance, hospital and state-level policymakers should reflect on which of these, or further options, seem feasible and justifiable.Irrespective of which approach is taken, all guidance should be supplemented with a monitoring and reporting requirement on possible disparate impacts. The hope that we will be able to continue to avoid rationing ventilators must not stand in the way of revising guidance in a way that better promotes health equity and racial justice, both to be prepared, and given the significant expressive value of ventilator guidance.

Priorities Towards Fair Allocation of Ventilators During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Delphi Study

Background

COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in severe shortage in vital resources, including invasive mechanical ventilators. The current imbalance between demand and supply of mechanical ventilators has called for investigations on the fair allocation of mechanical ventilators.

Objective

To determine the priorities of the medical experts towards the fair allocation of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This study was conducted from May 28 to Aug 20, 2020. The questionnaire was sent to 50 medical specialists as the Delphi panel. Participants were asked to rate each prioritising factor: “−1” for low priority, “+1” for high priority, and “Zero” for equal priority.

Results

Among 38 experts who responded to the email, the responses of 35 were analysed. 31 (88.6%) participants recommended that pregnant women be considered high priority in allocating ventilators, 27 (77.1%) mothers of children <5 years, 26 (74.3%) patients under 80-years, and 23 (65.7%) front-line-healthcare-workers. In contrast, 28 (80.0) participants recommended that patients who are terminally ill should be considered as a low priority, 27 (77.1%) patients with active-malignancy, 25 (71.4%) neurodegenerative diseases, and 16 (45.7%) patients aged >80. The panel did not reach a consensus regarding the role of patients' laboratory profiles, underlying diseases, or drug abuse in the prioritisation of ventilators.

Conclusions

The panel considered pregnant mothers, mothers of children under 5 years, age groups younger than 80, and front-line healthcare workers to have high priority in allocating mechanical ventilators.

Genomic Characterization of Host Factors Related to SARS-CoV-2 Infection in People with Dementia and Control Populations: The GR@ACE/DEGESCO Study

Emerging studies have suggested several chromosomal regions as potential host genetic factors involved in the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease outcome. We nested a COVID-19 genome-wide association study using the GR@ACE/DEGESCO study, searching for susceptibility factors associated with COVID-19 disease. To this end, we compared 221 COVID-19 confirmed cases with 17,035 individuals in whom the COVID-19 disease status was unknown. Then, we performed a meta-analysis with the publicly available data from the COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative. Because the APOE locus has been suggested as a potential modifier of COVID-19 disease, we added sensitivity analyses stratifying by dementia status or by disease severity. We confirmed the existence of the 3p21.31 region (LZTFL1, SLC6A20) implicated in the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and TYK2 gene might be involved in COVID-19 severity. Nevertheless, no statistically significant association was observed in the COVID-19 fatal outcome or in the stratified analyses (dementia-only and non-dementia strata) for the APOE locus not supporting its involvement in SARS-CoV-2 pathobiology or COVID-19 prognosis.

Priority Setting and Equity in COVID-19 Pandemic Plans: A Comparative Analysis of eighteen African Countries

Priority setting represents an even bigger challenge during public health emergencies than routine times. This is because such emergencies compete with routine programmes for the available health resources, strain health systems and shift health-care attention and resources towards containing the spread of the epidemic and treating those that fall seriously ill. This paper is part of a larger global study, the aim of which is to evaluate the degree to which national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans incorporated priority setting concepts. It provides important insights into what and how priority decisions were made in the context of a pandemic. Specifically, with a focus on a sample of 18 African countries’ pandemic plans, the paper aims to: (1) explore the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhere to established quality indicators of effective priority setting and (2) examine if there is a relationship between the number of quality indicators present in the pandemic plans and the country’s economic context, health system and prior experiences with disease outbreaks. All the reviewed plans contained some aspects of expected priority setting processes but none of the national plans addressed all quality parameters. Most of the parameters were mentioned by less than 10 of the 18 country plans reviewed, and several plans identified one or two aspects of fair priority setting processes. Very few plans identified equity as a criterion for priority setting. Since the parameters are relevant to the quality of priority setting that is implemented during public health emergencies and most of the countries have pre-existing pandemic plans; it would be advisable that, for the future (if not already happening), countries consider priority setting as a critical part of their routine health emergency and disease outbreak plans. Such an approach would ensure that priority setting is integral to pandemic planning, response and recovery.

'Saying goodbye' during the COVID-19 pandemic: A document analysis of online newspapers with implications for end of life care

BACKGROUND

News media create a sense-making narrative, shaping, reflecting and enforcing cultural ideas and experiences. Reportage of COVID-related death and bereavement illuminates public perceptions of, and responses to, the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM

We aimed to explore British newspaper representations of 'saying goodbye' before and after a COVID-related death and consider clinical implications.

DESIGN

Document analysis of UK online newspaper articles published during 2 week-long periods in March-April 2020.

DATA SOURCES

The seven most-read online newspapers were searched: The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Mirror, The Sun, The Times and The Metro. Fifty-five articles discussed bereavement after a human death from COVID-19, published during 18/03-24/03/2020 (the UK's transition into lockdown) or 08/04-14/04/2020 (the UK peak of the pandemic's first wave).

RESULTS

The act of 'saying goodbye' (before, during and after death) was central to media representations of COVID bereavement, represented as inherently important and profoundly disrupted. Bedside access was portrayed as restricted, variable and uncertain, with families begging or bargaining for contact. Video-link goodbyes were described with ambivalence. Patients were portrayed as 'dying alone' regardless of clinician presence. Funerals were portrayed as travesties and grieving alone as unnatural. Articles focused on what was forbidden and offered little practical guidance.

CONCLUSION

Newspapers portrayed COVID-19 as disruptive to rituals of 'saying goodbye' before, during and after death. Adaptations were presented as insufficient attempts to ameliorate tragic situations. More nuanced and supportive reporting is recommended. Clinicians and other professionals supporting the bereaved can play an important role in offering alternative narratives.

Priority Setting of Ventilators in the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Public's Perspective

Background: Ventilator allocation plan for a public health crisis should be developed through recognizing the values of society and engaging the general public. This study was conducted to assess the Iranian citizens' attitude about some principles and criteria for allocation of ventilators in the current COVID-19 epidemic.Materials and Methods: An electronic self-administered questionnaire was publicly distributed through social networks of Telegram and WhatsApp to perform this cross-sectional study. The questionnaire consisted of 11 statements about the selection and prioritization of patients for the use of a ventilator.Results: 1262 persons, including 767 citizens and 495 health care providers participated in this study. More than 95% of participants agreed upon the necessity to avoid discrimination and avoid prioritization according to patients' gender, economic and political status. While 40.9% of citizens and 49.6% of healthcare workers believed that a ventilator can be disconnected from a patient with a poor prognosis to help another patient who has a better prognosis (P-value = 0.13), 34.3% of people and 29.6% of healthcare workers believed that the earlier admitted patients have the right to receive the device even if the likeliness of his/her survival is less than the next patient (P-value = 0.009).Conclusions: Maximizing health benefits as a measure of ventilator allocation in the pandemic of COVID-19 is an accepted criterion. Meanwhile, periodic evaluation of patients and disconnecting the device from a patient that no longer benefits from ICU services requires its scientific and ethical basis to be brought in public discourse.

'Leading by Science' through Covid-19: the NHS Data Store & Automated Decision-Making

The UK government announced in March 2020 that it would create an NHS Covid-19 ‘Data Store’ from information routinely collected as part of the health service. This ‘Store’ would use a number of sources of population data to provide a ‘single source of truth’ about the spread of the coronavirus in England. The initiative illustrates the difficulty of relying on automated processing when making healthcare decisions under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The end-product of the store, a number of ‘dashboards’ for decision-makers, was intended to include models and simulations developed through artificial intelligence. Decisions made on the basis of these dashboards would be significant, even (it was suggested) to the point of diverting patients and critical resources between hospitals based on their predictions.

How these models will be developed, and externally validated, remains unclear. This is an issue if they are intended to be used for decisions which will affect patients so directly and acutely. We have (by default) a right under the GDPR not to be subject to significant decisions based solely on automated decision-making. It is not obvious, at present, whether resource allocation within the NHS could take place in reliance on this automated modelling. The recent A Level debacle illustrates, in the context of education, the risks of basing life-changing decisions on the national application of a single equation. It is worth considering the potential consequences for the health service if the NHS Data Store is used for resource planning as part of the Covid-19 response.

What Justifies the Allocation of Health Care Resources to Patients with Disorders of Consciousness?

This paper critically engages ethical issues in the allocation of novel, and potentially costly, health care resources to patients with disorders of consciousness. First, we review potential benefits of novel health care resources for patients and their families and outline preliminary considerations to address concerns about cost. We then address two problems regarding the allocation of health care resources to patients with disorders of consciousness: (1) the problem of uncertain moral status; and (2) the problem of accurately measuring the welfare burdens these resources would relieve. We conclude by suggesting that opportunity-based frameworks might complement standard approaches for justifying resources allocation to patients with disorders of consciousness.

Laypersons' Priority-Setting Preferences for Allocating a COVID-19 Patient to a Ventilator: Does a Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Matter?

PURPOSE

The current study aimed 1) to assess laypersons' priority-setting preferences for allocating ventilators to COVID-19 patients with and without AD while differentiating between a young and an old person with the disease, and 2) to examine the factors associated with these preferences.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a sample of 309 Israeli Jewish persons aged 40 and above.

RESULTS

Overall, almost three quarters (71%) of the participants chose the 80-year-old patient with a diagnosis of AD to be the last to be provided with a ventilator. The preferences of the remaining quarter were divided between the 80-year-old person who was cognitively intact and the 55-year-old person with AD. Education and subjective knowledge about AD were significantly associated with participants' preferences.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that cognitive status might not be a strong discriminating factor for laypersons' preferences for allocating ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Which factors should be included in triage? An online survey of the attitudes of the UK general public to pandemic triage dilemmas

OBJECTIVE

As cases of COVID-19 infections surge, concerns have renewed about intensive care units (ICUs) being overwhelmed and the need for specific triage protocols over winter. This study aimed to help inform triage guidance by exploring the views of lay people about factors to include in triage decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Online survey between 29th of May and 22nd of June 2020 based on hypothetical triage dilemmas. Participants recruited from existing market research panels, representative of the UK general population. Scenarios were presented in which a single ventilator is available, and two patients require ICU admission and ventilation. Patients differed in one of: chance of survival, life expectancy, age, expected length of treatment, disability and degree of frailty. Respondents were given the option of choosing one patient to treat or tossing a coin to decide.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-three participated. A majority of respondents prioritised patients who would have a higher chance of survival (72%-93%), longer life expectancy (78%-83%), required shorter duration of treatment (88%-94%), were younger (71%-79%) or had a lesser degree of frailty (60%-69%, all p<0.001). Where there was a small difference between two patients, a larger proportion elected to toss a coin to decide which patient to treat. A majority (58%-86%) were prepared to withdraw treatment from a patient in intensive care who had a lower chance of survival than another patient currently presenting with COVID-19. Respondents also indicated a willingness to give higher priority to healthcare workers and to patients with young children.

CONCLUSION

Members of the UK general public potentially support a broadly utilitarian approach to ICU triage in the face of overwhelming need. Survey respondents endorsed the relevance of patient factors currently included in triage guidance, but also factors not currently included. They supported the permissibility of reallocating treatment in a pandemic.

Impact of Hydroxychloroquine on Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused significant health and economic havoc around the globe. One of the early agents targeted for repurposing to treat and prevent COVID-19 was hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, HCQ is evaluated for its potential role in decreasing mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and medRxiv databases using combinations of the terms "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "coronavirus", "hydroxychloroquine", and "mortality". Articles were selected for further review based on the content of their abstracts. Studies were excluded if they were of poor methodological quality, were not based in the inpatient setting, or did not have available data to assess the primary outcome of death between patients treated with HCQ versus standard of care. Once the final dataset was compiled, a meta-analysis using the random-effects model was performed. Our search identified 14 studies involving 24,780 patients of whom 12,707 patients were on HCQ alone or in combination with other adjuvant therapies. HCQ alone or in combination with other drugs did not significantly decrease mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.26; p = 0.732; I2 = 91.05). Similar findings were observed in all subgroup analyses. HCQ did not significantly impact mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Additional well-designed studies are essential due to the heterogeneity in available studies.

Public attitudes toward allocating scarce resources in the COVID-19 pandemic

The general public is subject to triage policies that allocate scarce lifesaving resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the worst public health emergencies in the past 100 years. However, public attitudes toward ethical principles underlying triage policies used during this pandemic are not well understood. Three experiments (preregistered; online samples; N = 1,868; U.S. residents) assessed attitudes toward ethical principles underlying triage policies. The experiments evaluated assessments of utilitarian, egalitarian, prioritizing the worst-off, and social usefulness principles in conditions arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, involving resource scarcity, resource reallocation, and bias in resource allocation toward at-risk groups, such as the elderly or people of color. We found that participants agreed with allocation motivated by utilitarian principles and prioritizing the worst-off during initial distribution of resources and disagreed with allocation motivated by egalitarian and social usefulness principles. At reallocation, participants agreed with giving priority to those patients who received the resources first. Lastly, support for utilitarian allocation varied when saving the greatest number of lives resulted in disadvantage for at-risk or historically marginalized groups. Specifically, participants expressed higher levels of agreement with policies that shifted away from maximizing benefits to one that assigned the same priority to members of different groups if this mitigated disadvantage for people of color. Understanding these attitudes can contribute to developing triage policies, increase trust in health systems, and assist physicians in achieving their goals of patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Death risk stratification in elderly patients with covid-19. A comparative cohort study in nursing homes outbreaks

Elderly people are more severely affected by COVID-19. Nevertheless scarce information about specific prognostic scores for this population is available. The main objective was to compare the accuracy of recently developed COVID-19 prognostic scores to that of CURB-65, Charlson and PROFUND indices in a cohort of 272 elderly patients from four nursing homes, affected by COVID-19. Accuracy was measured by calibration (calibration curves and Hosmer-Lemeshov (H-L) test), and discriminative power (area under the receiver operation curve (AUC-ROC). Negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV) were also obtained. Overall mortality rate was 22.4 %. Only ACP and Shi et al. out of 10 specific COVID-19 indices could be assessed. All indices but CURB-65 showed a good calibration by H-L test, whilst PROFUND, ACP and CURB-65 showed best results in calibration curves. Only CURB-65 (AUC-ROC = 0.81 [0.75-0.87])) and PROFUND (AUC-ROC = 0.67 [0.6-0.75])) showed good discrimination power. The highest NPV was obtained by CURB-65 (95 % [90-98%]), PROFUND (93 % [77-98%]), and their combination (100 % [82-100%]); whereas CURB-65 (74 % [51-88%]), and its combination with PROFUND (80 % [50-94%]) showed highest PPV. PROFUND and CURB-65 indices showed the highest accuracy in predicting death-risk of elderly patients affected by COVID-19, whereas Charlson and recent developed COVID-19 specific tools lacked it, or were not available to assess. A comprehensive clinical stratification on two-level basis (basal death risk due to chronic conditions by PROFUND index, plus current death risk due to COVID-19 by CURB-65), could be an appropriate approach.

Triage of critical care resources in COVID-19: a stronger role for justice

Some ethicists assert that there is a consensus that maximising medical outcomes takes precedence as a principle of resource allocation in emergency triage of absolutely scarce resources. But the nature of the current severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 pandemic and the history of debate about balancing equity and efficiency in resource allocation do not support this assertion. I distinguish a number of concerns with justice and balancing considerations that should play a role in critical care triage policy, focusing on discrimination and on fundamental egalitarian and social justice concerns.

Ethical dilemmas in the era of COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed an extraordinary demand on health systems and healthcare providers all over the world. The pandemic presented a number of unprecedented challenging ethical issues. Across the globe, hospitals are being challenged by a large number of patients presenting to the emergency room for treatment, creating scarcities of critical care resources, and uncovering the need for formal crisis standards of care. Difficult life and death decisions, which may create severe moral distress to the physicians, have to be made in emergency rooms and intensive care units. Other ethical issues, such as that related to conducting clinical trials during the pandemic, and the increase in domestic violence during the quarantine period, will be also discussed.