IQ healthcare, section Ethics of healthcare, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
IQ healthcare, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2023 Aug 24;18(8):e0286978. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286978. eCollection 2023.
The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted many countries to formulate guidelines on how to deal with a worst-case scenario in which the number of patients needing intensive care unit (ICU) care exceeds the number of available beds. This study aims to explore the experiences of triage teams when triaging fictitious patients with the Dutch triage guidelines. It provides an overview of the factors that influence decision-making when performing ICU triage with triage guidelines.
Eight triage teams from four hospitals were given files of fictitious patients needing intensive care and instructed to triage these patients. Sessions were observed and audio-recorded. Four focus group interviews with triage team members were held to reflect on the sessions and the Dutch guidelines. The results were analyzed by inductive content analysis.
The Dutch triage guidelines were the main basis for making triage decisions. However, some teams also allowed their own considerations (outside of the guidelines) to play a role when making triage decisions, for example to help avoid using non-medical criteria such as prioritization based on age group. Group processes also played a role in decision-making: triage choices can be influenced by the triagists' opinion on the guidelines and the carefulness with which they are applied. Intensivists, being most experienced in prognostication of critical illness, often had the most decisive role during triage sessions.
Using the Dutch triage guidelines is feasible, but there were some inconsistencies in prioritization between teams that may be undesirable. ICU triage guideline writers should consider which aspects of their criteria might, when applied in practice, lead to inconsistencies or ethically questionable prioritization of patients. Practical training of triage team members in applying the guidelines, including explanation of the rationale underlying the triage criteria, might improve the willingness and ability of triage teams to follow the guidelines closely.
COVID-19 大流行促使许多国家制定了指导方针,以应对患者需要重症监护病房(ICU)治疗的人数超过可用床位数量的最坏情况。本研究旨在探讨分诊团队在使用荷兰分诊指南对虚构患者进行分诊时的经验。它概述了在使用分诊指南进行 ICU 分诊时影响决策制定的因素。
来自四家医院的八支分诊团队收到了需要重症监护的虚构患者的档案,并被指示对这些患者进行分诊。观察和记录了会议。对四名分诊团队成员进行了四次焦点小组访谈,以反映会议和荷兰指南的情况。通过归纳内容分析对结果进行了分析。
荷兰分诊指南是做出分诊决策的主要依据。然而,一些团队在做出分诊决策时也允许自己的考虑因素(超出指南范围)发挥作用,例如避免使用非医疗标准,例如根据年龄组进行优先级排序。小组流程也在决策中发挥了作用:分诊选择可能受到分诊员对指南的看法以及他们应用指南的谨慎程度的影响。在 ICU 中,重症监护医生在预测危重病方面经验最丰富,因此在分诊会议期间通常具有最决定性的作用。
使用荷兰分诊指南是可行的,但团队之间的优先级排序存在一些不一致之处,这可能不理想。ICU 分诊指南的编写者应考虑其标准的哪些方面在实践中应用时可能导致不一致或在道德上有问题的患者优先排序。对分诊团队成员进行应用指南的实践培训,包括解释分诊标准的基本原理,可能会提高分诊团队遵守指南的意愿和能力。