Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Chiba.
Juntendo University, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo.
Chest. 2021 Jun;159(6):2494-2502. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.01.015. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
In Japan, public dialogue on allocation of life-saving medical resources remains taboo, and discussion largely has been avoided.
Do Japanese health care workers and the general public agree with principles of ventilator allocation developed internationally?
A four-point Likert scale questionnaire was used to assess the extent of agreement or disagreement with internationally developed triage principles for rationing mechanical ventilators during pandemics. Questionnaires were distributed in person or online, and generalized linear models were used to analyze quantitative data. Free-text descriptions were analyzed qualitatively, both deductively and inductively, to compare respondent opinions with those described in previous US studies.
Of 3,191 surveys distributed, 1,520 were returned. Allocation of resources to maximize survival from current illness ("save the most lives") was the most popular triage principle, with 95.8% of respondents in agreement. Allocation to ensure a minimum duration of benefit, as determined by predicted prognosis after illness ("ensure minimum duration of benefit"), and allocation to persons who have experienced fewer life stages ("life cycle") obtained agreement of 82.2% and 80.1%, respectively. Withdrawal and reallocation of mechanical ventilators to more appropriate patients was supported by 64.4% of respondents. Only 28.4% of respondents supported the principle of first-come, first-served access to ventilators.
Most respondents supported allocation principles developed internationally and disagreed with the idea of first-come, first-served allocation during resource shortages. The Japanese public seems largely to be prepared to discuss the ethical dilemmas and possible solutions regarding fair and transparent allocation of critical care resources as a necessary step in confronting present and future pandemics and disasters.
在日本,公共对话中仍然忌讳涉及拯救生命的医疗资源分配问题,讨论也大多被回避。
日本的医疗工作者和公众是否同意国际上制定的呼吸机分配原则?
采用四点李克特量表问卷来评估对国际上制定的大流行期间呼吸机配给分类原则的同意或不同意程度。通过当面或在线的方式分发问卷,并使用广义线性模型来分析定量数据。通过演绎和归纳的方法对自由文本描述进行定性分析,将受访者的意见与之前在美国研究中描述的意见进行比较。
在分发的 3191 份调查中,有 1520 份被收回。将资源分配给最大限度地提高当前疾病生存几率的原则(“拯救最多生命”)是最受欢迎的分类原则,95.8%的受访者表示同意。确保根据疾病后的预测预后确定的最低受益期限的分配原则(“确保最低受益期限”)和分配给经历较少生命阶段的患者的原则(“生命周期”)分别获得 82.2%和 80.1%的同意。64.4%的受访者支持撤回和重新分配呼吸机给更合适的患者。只有 28.4%的受访者支持先到先得的呼吸机使用原则。
大多数受访者支持国际上制定的分配原则,并不同意在资源短缺时采用先来先服务的分配方式。日本公众似乎在很大程度上准备好讨论有关公平透明地分配重症监护资源的道德困境和可能的解决方案,这是应对当前和未来大流行和灾害的必要步骤。