Allocation of intensive care resources during an infectious disease outbreak: a rapid review to inform practice

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorFiest, Kirsten M
dc.contributor.authorKrewulak, Karla D
dc.contributor.authorPlotnikoff, Kara M
dc.contributor.authorKemp, Laryssa G
dc.contributor.authorParhar, Ken K S
dc.contributor.authorNiven, Daniel J
dc.contributor.authorKortbeek, John B
dc.contributor.authorStelfox, Henry T
dc.contributor.authorParsons Leigh, Jeanna
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-20T01:04:18Z
dc.date.available2020-12-20T01:04:18Z
dc.date.issued2020-12-18
dc.date.updated2020-12-20T01:04:18Z
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has placed sustained demand on health systems globally, and the capacity to provide critical care has been overwhelmed in some jurisdictions. It is unknown which triage criteria for allocation of resources perform best to inform health system decision-making. We sought to summarize and describe existing triage tools and ethical frameworks to aid healthcare decision-making during infectious disease outbreaks. Methods We conducted a rapid review of triage criteria and ethical frameworks for the allocation of critical care resources during epidemics and pandemics. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and SCOPUS from inception to November 3, 2020. Full-text screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate by three reviewers. Articles were included if they were primary research, an adult critical care setting, and the framework described was related to an infectious disease outbreak. We summarized each triage tool and ethical guidelines or framework including their elements and operating characteristics using descriptive statistics. We assessed the quality of each article with applicable checklists tailored to each study design. Results From 11,539 unique citations, 697 full-text articles were reviewed and 83 articles were included. Fifty-nine described critical care triage protocols and 25 described ethical frameworks. Of these, four articles described both a protocol and ethical framework. Sixty articles described 52 unique triage criteria (29 algorithm-based, 23 point-based). Few algorithmic- or point-based triage protocols were good predictors of mortality with AUCs ranging from 0.51 (PMEWS) to 0.85 (admitting SOFA > 11). Most published triage protocols included the substantive values of duty to provide care, equity, stewardship and trust, and the procedural value of reason. Conclusions This review summarizes available triage protocols and ethical guidelines to provide decision-makers with data to help select and tailor triage tools. Given the uncertainty about how the COVID-19 pandemic will progress and any future pandemics, jurisdictions should prepare by selecting and adapting a triage tool that works best for their circumstances.
dc.identifier.citationBMC Medicine. 2020 Dec 18;18(1):404
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01871-9
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1880/112889
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/43980
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dc.titleAllocation of intensive care resources during an infectious disease outbreak: a rapid review to inform practice
dc.typeJournal Article
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
12916_2020_Article_1871.pdf
Size:
990.27 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
0 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Open Access Publications