Suppr超能文献

传染病大流行期间的重症监护资源配置:一项快速综述以指导实践。

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

机构信息

Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary & Alberta Health Services, 3134 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N4Z6, Canada.

Department of Community Health Sciences and O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3134 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, T2N4Z6, Canada.

出版信息

BMC Med. 2020 Dec 18;18(1):404. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01871-9.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

COVID-19 大流行对全球卫生系统造成了持续的需求压力,一些司法管辖区提供重症监护的能力已经不堪重负。目前尚不清楚哪些资源分配的分诊标准最能为卫生系统决策提供信息。我们旨在总结和描述现有的分诊工具和伦理框架,以帮助在传染病爆发期间进行医疗保健决策。

方法

我们对大流行和流行病期间分配重症监护资源的分诊标准和伦理框架进行了快速审查。我们从开始到 2020 年 11 月 3 日在 Medline、EMBASE 和 SCOPUS 上进行了搜索。三位评审员独立并重复进行了全文筛选和数据提取。如果文章是主要研究、成人重症监护环境,并且所描述的框架与传染病爆发有关,则将其纳入。我们使用描述性统计数据总结了每个分诊工具和道德准则或框架,包括它们的要素和操作特点。我们使用针对每种研究设计量身定制的检查表评估了每篇文章的质量。

结果

从 11539 条独特的引用中,我们审查了 697 篇全文文章,其中 83 篇被纳入。其中 59 篇描述了重症监护分诊方案,25 篇描述了伦理框架。其中,有 4 篇文章同时描述了方案和伦理框架。有 60 篇文章描述了 52 个独特的分诊标准(29 个基于算法,23 个基于点)。很少有基于算法或基于点的分诊方案能很好地预测死亡率,AUC 范围从 0.51(PMEWS)到 0.85(入院 SOFA > 11)。大多数已发表的分诊方案都包含了提供护理的义务、公平、管理和信任等实质性价值,以及推理等程序性价值。

结论

本综述总结了现有的分诊方案和道德准则,为决策者提供了帮助选择和调整分诊工具的数据。鉴于 COVID-19 大流行的发展情况和任何未来的大流行存在不确定性,司法管辖区应通过选择和调整最适合其情况的分诊工具来做好准备。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/874c/7747405/2b43cae0d5d9/12916_2020_1871_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验