Practical allocation system for the distribution of specialised care during cellular therapy access scarcity

Applying Lessons Learned From Low-Resource Settings to Prioritize Cancer Care in a Pandemic

Importance

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced oncology clinicians and administrators in the United States to set priorities for cancer care owing to resource constraints. As oncology practices adapt to a contracted health care system, expertise gained from partnerships in low-resource settings can be used for guidance. This article provides a primer on priority setting in oncology and ethical guidance based on lessons learned from experience with cancer care priority setting in low-resource settings.

Observations

Lessons learned from real-world experiences are myriad. First, in the setting of limited resources, a utilitarian approach to maximizing survival benefit should guide decision-making. Second, conflicting principles will often arise among stakeholders and decision makers. Third, fair decision-making procedures should be established to ensure moral legitimacy and accountability. Fourth, proactive safeguards must be implemented to protect vulnerable individuals, or disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes will only widen further. Fifth, communication with patients and families about priority setting decisions should be intentional and standardized. Sixth, moral distress among clinicians must be addressed to avoid burnout during a time when resilience is critical.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although the need to triage cancer care may be new to those who underwent training and now practice oncology in high-resource settings, it is familiar for those who practice in low- and middle-income countries. Oncologists in the United States facing unprecedented decisions about prioritization can draw on ethical frameworks and lessons learned from real-world cancer care priority setting in resource-constrained environments.

A Qualitative Analysis of Oncology Patient Awareness of Medication Shortages and Their Preferences for How Shortages Should Be Managed

PURPOSE:

Medication shortages in US hospitals are ongoing, widespread, and frequently involve antineoplastic and supportive medications used in cancer care. The ways shortages are managed and the ways provider-patient communication takes place are heterogeneous, but the related preferences of oncology patients are undefined. This study sought to qualitatively evaluate patient preferences.

METHODS:

A cross-sectional, semi-structured interview study was conducted from January to June 2019. Participants were adult oncology inpatients who received primary cancer care at the University of Chicago, had undergone treatment within 2 years, and had 1 or more previous hospitalizations during that period. Participants (n = 54) were selected consecutively from alternating hematology and oncology services. The primary outcome was thematic saturation across the domains of awareness of medication shortages, principle preferences regarding decision makers, preferences regarding allocation of therapy drugs, and allocation-related communication.

RESULTS:

Thematic saturation was reached after 39 participants completed the study procedures (mean age, 59.6 years [standard deviation, 14.5 years]; men made up 61.5% of the study population [mean age, 24 years]; response rate, 72.0%). In all, 18% of participants were aware of institutional medication shortages. Patients preferred having multiple decision makers for allocating medications in the event of a shortage. A majority of patients named oncologists (100%), ethicists (92%), non-oncology physicians (77%), and pharmacists (64%) as their preferred decision makers. Participants favored allocation of drugs based on their efficacy (normalized weighted average, 1.3), and they also favored prioritizing people who were already receiving treatment (1.8), younger patients (2.0), sicker patients (3.1), and those presenting first for treatment (5.3). Most participants preferred preferred disclosure of supportive care medication shortages (74%) and antineoplastic medication shortages (79%) for equivalent substitutions.

CONCLUSION:

In a tertiary-care center with medication shortages, few oncologic inpatients were aware of shortages. Participants preferred having multiple decision makers involved in principle-driven allocation of scarce medications. Disclosure was preferred when their usual medications needed to be substituted with equivalent alternatives. These preliminary data suggest that preferences do not align with current management practices for medication shortages.

Cancer in the Time of Coronavirus: A Call for Crisis Oncology Standards of Care

Since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) was identified as a global pandemic, health systems have been severely strained, particularly affecting vulnerable populations such as patients with cancer. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a variety of oncology specialty societies are making recommendations for standards of care. These diverse standards and gaps in standards can lead to inconsistent and heterogeneous care among governments, cancer centers, and even among oncologists within the same practice. These challenges highlight the need for a common nomenclature and crisis guidelines. For times of increased scarcity of resources, the National Academy of Medicine developed Crisis Standards of Care, defined as fairness, duty to care, duty to steward resources, transparency, consistency, proportionality, and accountability. However, we believe there is an urgent need to develop cancer-specific guidelines by convening a panel of experts from multiple specialties. These would be Crisis Oncology Standards of Care (COSCs) that are sensitive to both the individual cancer patient and to the broader health system in times of scarce resources, such as pandemic, natural disaster, or supply chain disruptions.