Sohmer Joshua S, Fridman Sabina, Peters Darian, Jacomino Mario, Luck George
Medicine, Florida Atlantic University Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Boca Raton, USA.
Pediatrics, Memorial Healthcare, Pembroke Pines, USA.
Cureus. 2025 Jan 5;17(1):e76977. doi: 10.7759/cureus.76977. eCollection 2025 Jan.
Introduction In times of crisis, such as natural disasters, pandemics, or other emergencies, healthcare facilities often experience an unprecedented surge in critically ill or severely injured patients. When the demand for life-saving resources surpasses the available supply, healthcare leaders must implement scarce resource allocation (SRA) protocols, which are defined by state governments or hospital committees. Due to the lack of federal standardization and the wide variations in these protocols across states and healthcare systems, researchers aimed to investigate the disparities in SRA protocols and their impact on patient outcomes in preparation for future emergencies. -- Methods Researchers created a simulation involving mock patients admitted to a hospital with limited ventilator availability, where they were required to implement an SRA protocol. Nine mock adult patient profiles were generated, each varying in age, biological sex, past medical history, social history, and illness acuity and severity. Researchers also comprehensively reviewed SRA protocols implemented across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six protocols were selected and applied to the mock patient population. Variations in the methodology of allocation and outcomes of resource stewardship were observed. Results Significant differences were found among the six SRA protocols, including differences in objective scoring categories, exclusion criteria, considerations for age and pregnancy, tie-breaking methods, and the use of lottery systems. These protocol differences influenced the outcomes of life-saving treatments received by different patients. In this simulation, no two state algorithms provided the same ventilator allocation results for the nine patients. Conclusion SRA protocols either emphasized scoring systems or employed an ambiguous lottery system, placing an unnecessary burden on physicians and patients. As a result, the researchers advocate for federal standardization of SRA protocols, to ensure equal access to critical medical care for all individuals, regardless of location, and to eliminate the element of chance that currently varies by state.
引言 在危机时期,如自然灾害、大流行病或其他紧急情况,医疗机构常常会面临危重症或重伤患者数量前所未有的激增。当对救生资源的需求超过可用供应时,医疗领导者必须实施由州政府或医院委员会制定的稀缺资源分配(SRA)方案。由于缺乏联邦层面的标准化,且这些方案在各州和医疗系统之间存在很大差异,研究人员旨在调查SRA方案的差异及其对患者治疗结果的影响,为未来的紧急情况做好准备。——方法 研究人员创建了一个模拟场景,涉及收治到一家呼吸机供应有限的医院的虚拟患者,要求他们实施一项SRA方案。生成了九个虚拟成年患者档案,每个档案在年龄、生物性别、既往病史、社会史以及疾病的急性程度和严重程度方面各不相同。研究人员还全面审查了美国在新冠疫情期间实施的SRA方案。选择了六个方案并应用于虚拟患者群体。观察了资源管理分配方法和结果的差异。结果 发现六个SRA方案之间存在显著差异,包括客观评分类别、排除标准、年龄和怀孕相关考量、打破平局的方法以及抽签系统的使用等方面的差异。这些方案差异影响了不同患者接受的救生治疗结果。在这个模拟中,没有两个州的算法为这九个患者提供相同的呼吸机分配结果。结论 SRA方案要么强调评分系统,要么采用不明确的抽签系统,给医生和患者带来了不必要的负担。因此,研究人员主张对SRA方案进行联邦标准化,以确保所有个人,无论身处何地,都能平等获得关键医疗护理,并消除目前因州而异的偶然因素。