Ramirez CC, Farmer Y, Bouthillier ME. Public voices on tie-breaking criteria and underlying values in COVID-19 triage protocols to access critical care: a scoping review.
DISCOVER HEALTH SYSTEMS 2023;
2:16. [PMID:
37206881 PMCID:
PMC10169297 DOI:
10.1007/s44250-023-00027-9]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2023] [Accepted: 03/14/2023] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
Background
To reduce the arbitrariness in the allocation of rare resources in intensive care units (ICU) in the context of the pandemic, tiebreakers were considered in some COVID-19 triage algorithms. They were also contemplated to facilitate the tragic decisions of healthcare workers when faced with two patients with similar prognosis and only one ICU bed available. Little is known about the public's perspective on tiebreakers.
Objectives
To consolidate the available scientific literature on public consultations, particularly on tiebreakers and their underlying values. Also, to obtain an overview of the key arguments presented by the participating public and to identify potential gaps related to this topic.
Methods
The steps described by Arksey and O'Malley was the preferred method to our approach. Seven electronic databases were searched from January 2020 to April 2022, using keywords for each database: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EBM reviews, CINAHL complete. We also searched in Google and Google Scholar, and in the references of the articles found. Our analysis was mainly qualitative. A thematic analysis was performed to consider the public's perspectives on tiebreakers and their underlying values, according to these studies.
Results
Of 477 publications found, 20 were selected. They carried out public consultations through various methods: surveys (80%), interviews (20%), deliberative processes (15%) and others (5%) in various countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, and United States. Five themes emerged from our analysis. The public favored the life cycle (50%) and absolute age (45%) as a tiebreaker. Other values considered important were reciprocity, solidarity, equality, instrumental value, patient merit, efficiency, and stewardship. Among the new findings were a preference for patient nationality and those affected by COVID-19.
Conclusions
There is a preference for favoring younger patients over older patients when there is a tie between similar patients, with a slight tendency to favor intergenerational equity. Variability was found in the public's perspectives on tiebreakers and their values. This variability was related to socio-cultural and religious factors. More studies are needed to understand the public's perspective on tiebreakers.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44250-023-00027-9.
Collapse