Cheung Winston, Myburgh John, McGuinness Shay, Chalmers Debra, Parke Rachael, Blyth Fiona, Seppelt Ian, Parr Michael, Hooker Claire, Blackwell Nikki, DeMonte Shannon, Gandhi Kalpesh, Kol Mark, Kerridge Ian, Nair Priya, Saunders Nicholas M, Saxena Manoj K, Thanakrishnan Govindasamy, Naganathan Vasi
Intensive Care Unit, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Critical Care and Trauma Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Crit Care Resusc. 2017 Sep;19(3):254-265.
An influenza pandemic has the potential to overwhelm intensive care resources, but the views of the general public on how resources should be allocated in such a scenario were unknown. We aimed to determine Australian and New Zealand public opinion on how intensive care unit beds should be allocated during an influenza pandemic.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 4000 randomly selected registered voters; 2000 people each from the Australian Electoral Commission and New Zealand Electoral Commission rolls.
The respondents' preferred method to triage ICU patients in an influenza pandemic. Respondents chose from six methods: use a "first in, first served" approach; allow a senior doctor to decide; use pre-determined health department criteria; use random selection; use the patient's ability to pay; use the importance of the patient to decide. Respondents also rated each of the triage methods for fairness.
Australian respondents preferred that patients be triaged to the ICU either by a senior doctor (43.2%) or by pre-determined health department criteria (38.7%). New Zealand respondents preferred that triage be performed by a senior doctor (45.9%). Respondents from both countries perceived triage by a senior doctor and by pre-determined health department criteria to be fair, and the other four methods of triage to be unfair.
In an influenza pandemic, when ICU resources would be overwhelmed, survey respondents preferred that ICU triage be performed by a senior doctor, but also perceived the use of pre-determined triage criteria to be fair.
流感大流行可能使重症监护资源不堪重负，但公众对于在这种情况下资源应如何分配的看法尚不清楚。我们旨在确定澳大利亚和新西兰公众对于流感大流行期间重症监护病房床位应如何分配的意见。
设计、地点与参与者：向4000名随机抽取的登记选民发送了邮政调查问卷；其中2000人来自澳大利亚选举委员会名单，2000人来自新西兰选举委员会名单。
受访者在流感大流行期间对重症监护病房患者进行分诊的首选方法。受访者从六种方法中进行选择：采用“先到先得”的方式；由资深医生决定；采用预先确定的卫生部门标准；随机选择；根据患者支付能力；根据患者的重要性来决定。受访者还对每种分诊方法的公平性进行了评分。
澳大利亚受访者更倾向于由资深医生（43.2%）或根据预先确定的卫生部门标准（38.7%）对患者进行重症监护病房分诊。新西兰受访者更倾向于由资深医生进行分诊（45.9%）。两国的受访者都认为由资深医生和根据预先确定的卫生部门标准进行分诊是公平的，而其他四种分诊方法是不公平的。
在流感大流行期间，当重症监护资源不堪重负时，调查受访者更倾向于由资深医生进行重症监护病房分诊，但也认为采用预先确定的分诊标准是公平的。
