Quantifying Utilitarian Outcomes to Inform Triage Ethics: Simulated Performance of a Ventilator Triage Protocol under Sars-CoV-2 Pandemic Surge Conditions

Q1 Arts and Humanities
E. Chuang, J. Grand-Clément, J. Chen, Carri W. Chan, Vineet Goyal, M. Gong
{"title":"Quantifying Utilitarian Outcomes to Inform Triage Ethics: Simulated Performance of a Ventilator Triage Protocol under Sars-CoV-2 Pandemic Surge Conditions","authors":"E. Chuang, J. Grand-Clément, J. Chen, Carri W. Chan, Vineet Goyal, M. Gong","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2022.2063999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Equitable protocols to triage life-saving resources must be specified prior to shortages in order to promote transparency, trust and consistency. How well proposed utilitarian protocols perform to maximize lives saved is unknown. We aimed to estimate the survival rates that would be associated with implementation of the New York State 2015 guidelines for ventilator triage, and to compare them to a first-come-first-served triage method. Methods We constructed a simulation model based on a modified version of the New York State 2015 guidelines compared to a first-come-first-served method under various hypothetical ventilator shortages. We included patients with SARs-CoV-2 infection admitted with respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation to three acute care hospitals in New York from 3/01/2020 and 5/27/2020. We estimated (1) survival rates, (2) number of excess deaths, (3) number of patients extubated early or not allocated a ventilator due to capacity constraints, (4) survival rates among patients not allocated a ventilator at triage or extubated early due to capacity constraints. Results 807 patients were included in the study. The simulation model based on a modified New York State policy did not decrease mortality, excess death or exclusion from ventilators compared to the first-come-first-served policy at every ventilator capacity we tested using COVID-19 surge cohort patients. Survival rates were similar at all the survival probabilities estimated. At the lowest ventilator capacity, the modified New York State policy has an estimated survival of 28.5% (CI: 28.4-28.6), compared to 28.1% (CI: 27.7-28.5) for the first-come-first-served policy. Conclusions This simulation of a modified New York State guideline-based triage protocol revealed limitations in achieving the utilitarian goals these protocols are designed to fulfill. Quantifying these outcomes can inform a better balance among competing moral aims.","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"13 1","pages":"196 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2063999","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Background Equitable protocols to triage life-saving resources must be specified prior to shortages in order to promote transparency, trust and consistency. How well proposed utilitarian protocols perform to maximize lives saved is unknown. We aimed to estimate the survival rates that would be associated with implementation of the New York State 2015 guidelines for ventilator triage, and to compare them to a first-come-first-served triage method. Methods We constructed a simulation model based on a modified version of the New York State 2015 guidelines compared to a first-come-first-served method under various hypothetical ventilator shortages. We included patients with SARs-CoV-2 infection admitted with respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation to three acute care hospitals in New York from 3/01/2020 and 5/27/2020. We estimated (1) survival rates, (2) number of excess deaths, (3) number of patients extubated early or not allocated a ventilator due to capacity constraints, (4) survival rates among patients not allocated a ventilator at triage or extubated early due to capacity constraints. Results 807 patients were included in the study. The simulation model based on a modified New York State policy did not decrease mortality, excess death or exclusion from ventilators compared to the first-come-first-served policy at every ventilator capacity we tested using COVID-19 surge cohort patients. Survival rates were similar at all the survival probabilities estimated. At the lowest ventilator capacity, the modified New York State policy has an estimated survival of 28.5% (CI: 28.4-28.6), compared to 28.1% (CI: 27.7-28.5) for the first-come-first-served policy. Conclusions This simulation of a modified New York State guideline-based triage protocol revealed limitations in achieving the utilitarian goals these protocols are designed to fulfill. Quantifying these outcomes can inform a better balance among competing moral aims.
量化实用结果以告知分诊伦理:Sars-CoV-2大流行激增条件下呼吸机分诊方案的模拟性能
摘要背景必须在救生资源短缺之前制定公平的分类协议,以促进透明度、信任和一致性。所提出的实用性协议在最大限度地挽救生命方面表现得如何尚不清楚。我们旨在估计与实施2015年纽约州呼吸机分诊指南相关的存活率,并将其与先到先得的分诊方法进行比较。方法在各种假设的呼吸机短缺情况下,与先到先得的方法相比,我们基于纽约州2015年指南的修订版构建了一个模拟模型。我们纳入了2020年1月3日和2020年5月27日在纽约三家急性护理医院因呼吸衰竭需要机械通气而入院的严重急性呼吸系统综合征冠状病毒2型感染患者。我们估计了(1)生存率,(2)超额死亡人数,(3)由于容量限制而提前拔管或未分配呼吸机的患者人数,(4)由于容量约束而在分诊时未分配呼吸机或提前拔管的患者的生存率。结果807例患者被纳入研究。在我们使用新冠肺炎激增队列患者测试的每台呼吸机容量下,基于修改后的纽约州政策的模拟模型与第一台商用呼吸机政策相比,没有降低死亡率、超额死亡或被排除在呼吸机之外的情况。在所有估计的存活概率下,存活率相似。在呼吸机容量最低的情况下,修改后的纽约州政策估计存活率为28.5%(CI:28.4-28.6),而先到先得政策的存活率为28.1%(CI:27.7-28.5)。结论对修改后的纽约州基于指南的分诊方案的模拟揭示了在实现这些方案旨在实现的实用目标方面的局限性。量化这些结果可以更好地平衡相互竞争的道德目标。
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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
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