Investigating Ethical Tradeoffs in Crisis Standards of Care through Simulation of Ventilator Allocation Protocols

Jonathan Herington, Jessica Shand, Jeanne Holden-Wiltse, Anthony Corbett, Richard Dees, Chin-Lin Ching, Marjorie H Shaw, Xueya Cai, Martin Zand
{"title":"Investigating Ethical Tradeoffs in Crisis Standards of Care through Simulation of Ventilator Allocation Protocols","authors":"Jonathan Herington, Jessica Shand, Jeanne Holden-Wiltse, Anthony Corbett, Richard Dees, Chin-Lin Ching, Marjorie H Shaw, Xueya Cai, Martin Zand","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.10.24304058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Arguments over the appropriate Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) for public health emergencies often assume that there is a tradeoff between saving the most lives, saving the most life-years, and preventing racial disparities. However, these assumptions have rarely been explored empirically. To quantitatively characterize possible ethical tradeoffs, we aimed to simulate the implementation of five proposed CSC protocols for rationing ventilators in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.\nMethods: A Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the number of lives saved and life-years saved by implementing clinical acuity-, comorbidity- and age-based CSC protocols under different shortage conditions. This model was populated with patient data from 3707 adult admissions requiring ventilator support in a New York hospital system between April 2020 and May 2021. To estimate lives and life-years saved by each protocol, we determined survival to discharge and estimated remaining life expectancy for each admission.\nResults: The simulation demonstrated stronger performance for age- and comorbidity-sensitive protocols. For a capacity of 1 bed per 2 patients, ranking by age bands saves approximately 28.7 lives and 3408 life-years per thousand patients, while ranking by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) bands saved the fewest lives (13.2) and life-years (416). For all protocols, we observed a positive correlation between lives saved and life-years saved. For all protocols except lottery and the banded SOFA, significant disparities in lives saved and life-years saved were noted between White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic sub-populations.\nConclusion: While there is significant variance in the number of lives saved and life-years saved, we did not find a tradeoff between saving the most lives and saving the most life-years. Moreover, concerns about racial discrimination in triage protocols require thinking carefully about the tradeoff between enforcing equality of survival rates and maximizing the lives saved in each sub-population.","PeriodicalId":501386,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Policy","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.10.24304058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Arguments over the appropriate Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) for public health emergencies often assume that there is a tradeoff between saving the most lives, saving the most life-years, and preventing racial disparities. However, these assumptions have rarely been explored empirically. To quantitatively characterize possible ethical tradeoffs, we aimed to simulate the implementation of five proposed CSC protocols for rationing ventilators in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the number of lives saved and life-years saved by implementing clinical acuity-, comorbidity- and age-based CSC protocols under different shortage conditions. This model was populated with patient data from 3707 adult admissions requiring ventilator support in a New York hospital system between April 2020 and May 2021. To estimate lives and life-years saved by each protocol, we determined survival to discharge and estimated remaining life expectancy for each admission. Results: The simulation demonstrated stronger performance for age- and comorbidity-sensitive protocols. For a capacity of 1 bed per 2 patients, ranking by age bands saves approximately 28.7 lives and 3408 life-years per thousand patients, while ranking by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) bands saved the fewest lives (13.2) and life-years (416). For all protocols, we observed a positive correlation between lives saved and life-years saved. For all protocols except lottery and the banded SOFA, significant disparities in lives saved and life-years saved were noted between White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic sub-populations. Conclusion: While there is significant variance in the number of lives saved and life-years saved, we did not find a tradeoff between saving the most lives and saving the most life-years. Moreover, concerns about racial discrimination in triage protocols require thinking carefully about the tradeoff between enforcing equality of survival rates and maximizing the lives saved in each sub-population.
通过模拟呼吸机分配规程调查危机护理标准中的伦理权衡
导言:关于公共卫生突发事件的适当危机救护标准(CSC)的争论通常假定,在挽救最多的生命、挽救最多的生命年数和防止种族差异之间需要做出权衡。然而,这些假设很少经过实证探索。为了定量描述可能存在的伦理权衡,我们旨在模拟在 COVID-19 大流行的背景下实施五项建议的 CSC 协议以配给呼吸机:我们使用蒙特卡洛模拟法估算了在不同短缺条件下实施基于临床连续性、合并症和年龄的 CSC 方案所挽救的生命数量和挽救的生命年数。该模型使用了纽约一家医院系统在 2020 年 4 月至 2021 年 5 月期间收治的 3707 名需要呼吸机支持的成人患者数据。为了估算每种方案挽救的生命和寿命年数,我们确定了每位入院患者的出院存活率和剩余预期寿命:结果:模拟结果表明,对年龄和合并症敏感的方案更有效。在每 2 名患者使用 1 张病床的情况下,按年龄段排序每千名患者可挽救约 28.7 条生命和 3408 个生命年,而按器官功能衰竭序列评估(SOFA)排序每千名患者可挽救的生命(13.2 条)和生命年(416 个)最少。在所有方案中,我们观察到挽救的生命与挽救的生命年之间呈正相关。除抽签和带状 SOFA 外,所有方案的挽救生命和挽救生命年数在非西班牙裔白人、非西班牙裔黑人和西班牙裔亚群之间存在显著差异:结论:虽然挽救的生命数量和挽救的生命年数存在显著差异,但我们并未发现在挽救最多生命和挽救最多生命年数之间存在权衡。此外,考虑到分流方案中的种族歧视问题,我们需要认真思考如何在确保存活率平等与最大限度地挽救每个亚人群的生命之间进行权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信