Riggan Kirsten A, Kesler Sarah, DeBruin Debra, Wolf Susan M, Leider Jonathon P, Sederstrom Nneka, Dichter Jeffrey, DeMartino Erin S
Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Division, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2024 Nov 16;8(6):537-547. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2024.09.003. eCollection 2024 Dec.
To assess hospitals' plans for implementing Minnesota's statewide guidance for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Individuals from 23 hospitals across Minnesota were invited to complete a 25-item survey between July 20, 2020, and September 18, 2020 to understand how hospitals in the state intended to operationalize statewide clinical triage instructions for scarce resources (including mechanical ventilation) and written ethics guidance on the allocation of critical care resources in the event crisis standards of care triggered triage.
Of individuals invited from 23 hospitals, 14 hospitals completed the survey (60.9% institutional response rate) and described plans for triage at their respective hospitals. Planned triage team composition and size varied. Hospitals' plans for which individuals should assign a triage score (reflecting patients' illness severity) also differed markedly. Most respondents described plans for staff training to address potential bias in triage.
Despite explicit state guidance to encourage consistency across hospitals, we found considerable heterogeneity in implementation plans. Plans diverged from Minnesota's written ethics guidance on whether to consider race during triage to help mitigate health disparities. Inconsistencies between the state's 2 guidance documents could explain some of these differences. Collaboration between hospitals and committees developing statewide guidance may help identify barriers to effective operationalization. Ongoing review of published guidance and hospital plans can identify issues of clarity and consistency and promote equitable triage.
评估医院在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间实施明尼苏达州全州范围内稀缺重症监护资源分配指南的计划。
2020年7月20日至2020年9月18日期间,邀请了明尼苏达州23家医院的人员完成一项包含25个项目的调查,以了解该州医院打算如何实施针对稀缺资源(包括机械通气)的全州临床分诊指示,以及在危机护理标准触发分诊情况下关于重症监护资源分配的书面伦理指南。
在受邀的23家医院中,14家医院完成了调查(机构回应率为60.9%),并描述了各自医院的分诊计划。计划中的分诊团队组成和规模各不相同。医院关于应由哪些人员给出分诊分数(反映患者疾病严重程度)的计划也存在显著差异。大多数受访者描述了针对工作人员培训的计划,以解决分诊中可能存在的偏见。
尽管有明确的州指南鼓励各医院保持一致,但我们发现实施计划存在相当大的异质性。在分诊时是否考虑种族以帮助减轻健康差异方面,各计划与明尼苏达州的书面伦理指南存在分歧。该州两份指南文件之间的不一致可能解释了其中一些差异。医院与制定全州指南的委员会之间的合作可能有助于识别有效实施过程中的障碍。对已发布的指南和医院计划进行持续审查可以发现清晰度和一致性方面的问题,并促进公平分诊。