The burdens of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have fallen disproportionately on disadvantaged groups, including the poor and Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities. There is ...substantial concern that the use of existing ICU triage protocols to allocate scarce ventilators and critical care resources-most of which are designed to save as many lives as possible-may compound these inequities. As governments and health systems revisit their triage guidelines in the context of impending resource shortages, scholars have advocated a range of alternative allocation strategies, including the use of a random lottery to give all patients in need an equal chance of ICU treatment. However, both the save-the-most-lives approach and random allocation are seriously flawed. In this Perspective, we argue that ICU triage policies should simultaneously promote population health outcomes and mitigate health inequities. These ethical goals are sometimes in conflict, which will require balancing the goals of maximizing the number of lives saved and distributing health benefits equitably across society. We recommend three strategies to mitigate health inequities during ICU triage: introducing a correction factor into patients' triage scores to reduce the impact of baseline structural inequities; giving heightened priority to individuals in essential, high-risk occupations; and rejecting use of longer-term life expectancy and categorical exclusions as allocation criteria. We present a practical triage framework that incorporates these strategies and attends to the twin public health goals of promoting population health and social justice.
Background The opioid epidemic has led to an increase in the number of persons who inject drugs, and this population accounts for 12% of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and 60% of new ...hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in the United States annually. While persons who inject drugs disproportionately utilize the emergency department (ED), accurate data is lacking on the prevalence and patterns of injection drug use, and prevalence of co-occurring HIV and HCV infections among ED patients. Objective The primary outcome was to assess the prevalence of injection drug use and co-occurring HIV and HCV infection among patients presenting to an urban ED. Methods This was a cross sectional study conducted at an urban ED, with an annual census of 65,000 visits. A closed-response questionnaire was developed based on publicly available validated surveys to assess patterns of injection drug use and HIV and HCV infection status, and administered by trained research assistants to all registered adult patients during 4-hour blocks of time. Results Of the 2,319 eligible patients, 2,200 (94.9%) consented and completed the survey. 241 (11.0%) had ever used injection drugs, 103 (4.7%) currently used injection drugs, and 138 (6.3%) formerly used injection drugs. White patients age 25 to 34 years and white patients age 55 to 64 years had the highest prevalence of current (25.6%) and former (27.1%) injection drug use, respectively. Persons who use injection drugs had a higher prevalence of HCV infection (52.7% vs. 3.4%) and HIV infection (6.2% vs. 1.8%) than the rest of the population. Conclusion A high prevalence of ED patients report injection drug use, and this population self-reports a high prevalence of HIV and HCV infection. Emergency departments are in a unique position to engage with this population with regards to substance use treatment and linkage to care for HIV and HCV infection.
Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote ...partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills.
The American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement.
Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies.
Patient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate.
Because most critically ill patients lack decision-making capacity, physicians often ask family members to act as surrogates for the patient in discussions about the goals of care. Therefore, ...clinician-family communication is a central component of medical decision making in the ICU, and the quality of this communication has direct bearing on decisions made regarding care for critically ill patients. In addition, studies suggest that clinician-family communication can also have profound effects on the experiences and long-term mental health of family members. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a context and rationale for improving the quality of communication with family members and to provide practical, evidence-based guidance on how to conduct this communication in the ICU setting. We emphasize the importance of discussing prognosis effectively, the key role of the integrated interdisciplinary team in this communication, and the importance of assessing spiritual needs and addressing barriers that can be raised by cross-cultural communication. We also discuss the potential value of protocols to encourage communication and the potential role of quality improvement for enhancing communication with family members. Last, we review issues regarding physician reimbursement for communication with family members within the context of the US health-care system. Communication with family members in the ICU setting is complex, and high-quality communication requires training and collaboration of a well-functioning interdisciplinary team. This communication also requires a balance between adhering to processes of care that are associated with improved outcomes and individualizing communication to the unique needs of the family.
In the pursuit of ending the HIV epidemic, U.S. emergency departments (EDs) have emerged as a valuable setting to increase HIV testing and linkage to care. There is limited data available, however, ...describing the incorporation of HIV prevention initiatives in U.S. EDs. Over the last decade, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has significantly changed the HIV prevention landscape globally and very little is known about the provision of PrEP in U.S. EDs. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative studies and conference abstracts spanning July 2012 - October 2022. Of 433 citations, 11 articles and 13 abstracts meet our inclusion criteria, representing 18 unique studies addressing PrEP screening, prescribing, and/or linkage to PrEP care.
Most studies describe screening processes to identify PrEP-eligible patients (
n
= 17); most studies leveraged a patient’s STI history as initial PrEP eligibility screening criteria. Fewer studies describe PrEP prescribing (n = 2) and/or linkage to PrEP care (
n
= 8).
Findings from this systematic review highlight the potential for U.S. EDs to increase PrEP uptake among individuals at risk for HIV infection. Despite a growing number of studies exploring processes for incorporating PrEP into the ED setting, such studies are small-scale and time limited. Models providing prescribing PrEP in the ED show higher initiation rates than post-discharge engagement models. Electronic health record (EHR)-based HIV screening is valuable, but post-ED linkage rates are low. Our findings emphasize the need to establish best practices for initiating and supporting prevention effective PrEP use in the ED setting.
We wholeheartedly agree with Schmidt and colleagues' efforts to promote equity in intensive care unit (ICU) triage. We also take issue with their characterisation of the New Jersey (NJ) allocation ...framework for ICU beds and ventilators, which is modelled after the multi-principle allocation framework we developed early in the pandemic. They characterise it as a two-criterion allocation framework and claim-without evidence-that it will 'compound disadvantage for black patients'. However, the NJ triage framework-like the model allocation policy we developed-actually contains four allocation criteria: the two criteria that the authors mentioned (chances for survival and near-term prognosis) and two criteria that they failed to mention which we included to promote equity: giving priority to frontline essential workers and giving priority to younger patients. These omissions are problematic both for reasons of factual accuracy and because the two criteria they failed to acknowledge would likely mitigate rather than exacerbate racial disparities during triage.
PDF
