Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Newborn Care Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
BMJ Open. 2020 Dec 8;10(12):e045593. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045593.
As cases of COVID-19 infections surge, concerns have renewed about intensive care units (ICUs) being overwhelmed and the need for specific triage protocols over winter. This study aimed to help inform triage guidance by exploring the views of lay people about factors to include in triage decisions.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Online survey between 29th of May and 22nd of June 2020 based on hypothetical triage dilemmas. Participants recruited from existing market research panels, representative of the UK general population. Scenarios were presented in which a single ventilator is available, and two patients require ICU admission and ventilation. Patients differed in one of: chance of survival, life expectancy, age, expected length of treatment, disability and degree of frailty. Respondents were given the option of choosing one patient to treat or tossing a coin to decide.
Seven hundred and sixty-three participated. A majority of respondents prioritised patients who would have a higher chance of survival (72%-93%), longer life expectancy (78%-83%), required shorter duration of treatment (88%-94%), were younger (71%-79%) or had a lesser degree of frailty (60%-69%, all p<0.001). Where there was a small difference between two patients, a larger proportion elected to toss a coin to decide which patient to treat. A majority (58%-86%) were prepared to withdraw treatment from a patient in intensive care who had a lower chance of survival than another patient currently presenting with COVID-19. Respondents also indicated a willingness to give higher priority to healthcare workers and to patients with young children.
Members of the UK general public potentially support a broadly utilitarian approach to ICU triage in the face of overwhelming need. Survey respondents endorsed the relevance of patient factors currently included in triage guidance, but also factors not currently included. They supported the permissibility of reallocating treatment in a pandemic.
随着 COVID-19 感染病例的激增,人们再次担心重症监护病房(ICU)不堪重负,以及冬季需要特定的分诊协议。本研究旨在通过探索公众对分诊决策中纳入因素的看法,为分诊指南提供信息。
设计、地点和参与者:基于假设的分诊困境,于 2020 年 5 月 29 日至 6 月 22 日期间进行在线调查。参与者从现有的市场研究小组中招募,代表英国一般人群。研究中提出了一种情况,即只有一台呼吸机可用,而有两名患者需要 ICU 入院和通气。患者在以下方面存在差异:存活机会、预期寿命、年龄、预期治疗时间、残疾和脆弱程度。受访者可以选择治疗一名患者,也可以选择掷硬币来决定。
763 人参与。大多数受访者优先考虑存活机会更高(72%-93%)、预期寿命更长(78%-83%)、治疗时间更短(88%-94%)、年龄更小(71%-79%)或脆弱程度更低(60%-69%)的患者(均 p<0.001)。如果两名患者之间存在微小差异,更多的人会选择掷硬币来决定治疗哪位患者。大多数(58%-86%)人愿意停止对 ICU 中存活机会低于当前患有 COVID-19 的另一名患者的治疗。受访者还表示愿意优先考虑医护人员和有年幼子女的患者。
英国公众在面对压倒性需求时,可能支持一种广泛的功利主义 ICU 分诊方法。调查受访者认可目前纳入分诊指南的患者因素的相关性,但也认可目前未纳入的因素。他们支持在大流行期间重新分配治疗。