Allocation Of Critical Care Resources Research Articles

Physician and administrator experience of preparing to implement Ontario's intensive care unit Triage Emergency Standard of Care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

As the COVID-19 pandemic created a surge in demand for critical care resources, the province of Ontario, Canada, released the Adult Critical Care Clinical Emergency Standard of Care for Major Surge (Emergency Standard of Care [ESoC]), a triage framework to guide the allocation of critical care resources in the expectation that intensive care units would be overwhelmed. Our aim was to understand physicians' and administrators' experiences and perceptions of planning to implement the ESoC, and to identify ways to improve critical care triage processes for future pandemics. We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with critical care, emergency and internal medicine physicians, and hospital administrators from various Ontario health regions who were involved in their hospital's or region's ESoC implementation planning. Interviews were conducted virtually between April and October 2021. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis. We conducted interviews with 11 physicians and 10 hospital administrators representing 9 health regions. We identified 4 themes regarding participants' preparation to implement the ESoC: infrastructure to enable effective triage implementation; social, medical and political supports to enable effective triage implementation; moral dimensions of triage implementation; and communication of triage results. Participants outlined administrative and implementation-related improvements that could be provided at the provincial level, such as billing codes for ESoC. They also suggested improving ethical supports for the usability and quality of the ESoC (e.g., designating an ethicist in each region), and ways to improve the efficiency and usability of the tools for assessing short-term mortality risk (e.g., create information technology solutions such as a dashboard). The implementation of a jurisdiction-level triage framework poses moral challenges for a health care system, but it also requires dedicated infrastructure, as well as institutional supports. Lessons learned from Ontario's process to prepare for ESoC implementation, as well as participants' suggestions, can be used for planning for current and future pandemics.

Triage Procedures for Critical Care Resource Allocation During Scarcity

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many US states issued or revised pandemic preparedness plans guiding allocation of critical care resources during crises. State plans vary in the factors used to triage patients and have faced criticism from advocacy groups due to the potential for discrimination. To analyze the role of comorbidities and long-term prognosis in state triage procedures. This cross-sectional study used data gathered from parallel internet searches for state-endorsed pandemic preparedness plans for the 50 US states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to as states), which were conducted between November 25, 2021, and June 16, 2023. Plans available on June 16, 2023, that provided step-by-step instructions for triaging critically ill patients were categorized for use of comorbidities and prognostication. Prevalence and contents of lists of comorbidities and their stated function in triage and instructions to predict duration of postdischarge survival. Overall, 32 state-promulgated pandemic preparedness plans included triage procedures specific enough to guide triage in clinical practice. Twenty of these (63%) included lists of comorbidities that excluded (11 of 20 [55%]) or deprioritized (8 of 20 [40%]) patients during triage; one state's list was formulated to resolve ties between patients with equal triage scores. Most states with triage procedures (21 of 32 [66%]) considered predicted survival beyond hospital discharge. These states proposed different prognostic time horizons; 15 of 21 (71%) were numeric (ranging from 6 months to 5 years after hospital discharge), with the remaining 6 (29%) using descriptive terms, such as long-term. In this cross-sectional study of state-promulgated critical care triage policies, most plans restricted access to scarce critical care resources for patients with listed comorbidities and/or for patients with less-than-average expected postdischarge survival. This analysis raises concerns about access to care during a public health crisis for populations with high burdens of chronic illness, such as individuals with disabilities and minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

The Maryland (USA) Critical Care Coordination Center (C4): From Pandemic to Permanence.

The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic created overwhelming demand for critical care services within Maryland's (USA) hospital systems. As intensive care units (ICUs) became full, critically ill patients were boarded in hospital emergency departments (EDs), a practice associated with increased mortality and costs. Allocation of critical care resources during the pandemic requires thoughtful and proactive management strategies. While various methodologies exist for addressing the issue of ED overcrowding, few systems have implemented a state-wide response using a public safety-based platform. The objective of this report is to describe the implementation of a state-wide Emergency Medical Services (EMS)-based coordination center designed to ensure timely and equitable access to critical care. The state of Maryland designed and implemented a novel, state-wide Critical Care Coordination Center (C4) staffed with intensivist physicians and paramedics purposed to ensure appropriate critical care resource management and patient transfer assistance. A narrative description of the C4 is provided. A retrospective cohort study design was used to present requests to the C4 as a case series report to describe the results of implementation. Providing a centralized asset with regional situational awareness of hospital capability and bed status played an integral role for directing the triage process of critically ill patients to appropriate facilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 2,790 requests were received by the C4. The pairing of a paramedic with an intensivist physician resulted in the successful transfer of 67.4% of requests, while 27.8% were managed in place with medical direction. Overall, COVID-19 patients comprised 29.5% of the cohort. Data suggested increased C4 usage was predictive of state-wide ICU surges. The C4 usage volume resulted in the expansion to pediatric services to serve a broader age range. The C4 concept, which leverages the complimentary skills of EMS clinicians and intensivist physicians, is presented as a proposed public safety-based model for other regions to consider world-wide. The C4 has played an integral role in the State of Maryland's pledge to its citizens to deliver the right care to the right patient at the right time and can be considered as a model for adoption by other regions world-wide.

Operationalizing Equity in Surgical Prioritization

The allocation of critical care resources and triaging patients garnered a great deal of attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is a paucity of guidance regarding the ethical aspects of resource allocation and patient prioritization in ‘normal’ circumstances for Canadian healthcare systems. One context where allocation and prioritization decisions are required are surgical waitlists, which have been globally exacerbated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we detail the process used to develop an ethics framework to support prioritization for elective surgery at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, a tertiary pediatric hospital. Our goal was to provide guidance for the more value-laden aspects of prioritization, particularly when clinical urgency alone is insufficient to dictate priority. With this goal in mind, we worked to capture familial, relational, and equity considerations. As part of our institution’s concerted efforts to ethically and effectively address our surgical backlog, an ethics working group was formed comprising clinicians from surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, a hospital bioethicist, a parent advisor, and an academic bioethics researcher. A reflective equilibrium process was used to develop an ethics framework. To this end, the same methodology was used to create a support for patient prioritization that identifies clinically and morally relevant factors for prioritization among medically similar surgical cases, with a substantive goal being to identify and redress health inequities in surgical prioritization, inasmuch as this is possible. While further steps are needed to validate several aspects of the framework, our research suggests that an ethics framework grounded in the practical realities of hospital operations provides consistency, transparency, and needed support for decisions that are often left to individual clinicians, as well as an opportunity to reflect upon the presence of health inequities in all domains of healthcare delivery.

Risk stratification and cost-effectiveness analysis of adult patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

A more effective allocation of critical care resources is important as the cost of intensive care increases. A model has been developed to predict the probability of in-hospital death among patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) were performed regarding the relationship between hospitalization expenses and predicted survival outcomes. Adult patients who received ECMO in a medical center in Taiwan (2005-2016) were included. A logistic regression model was applied to a spectrum of clinical measures obtained before and during ECMO institutions to identify the risk variables for in-hospital mortality. CEA were reported as a predictive risk in quintiles and defined as the cost of each quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The distribution of the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) was measured by the ellipse and acceptability curve methods. A total of 919 patients (659 males, mean age: 53.7 years) were enrolled. Ten variables emerged as significant predictors of in-hospital death. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.79). In-hospital and total follow-up times were 40,366 and 660,205 person-days, respectively. The total in-hospital expense was $31,818,701 USD and the total effectiveness was 1687.3 QALY. For the lowest to the highest risk quintile, the mean mortality risks were 0.30, 0.48, 0.61, 0.75, and 0.88, and mean adjusted CER were $24,230, $43,042, $54,929, $84,973, and $149,095 per QALY, respectively. The efficient allocation of limited and costly resources is most important when one is forced to decide between groups of critically ill patients. The current analyses of ECMO outcomes should assist in identifying candidates with the greatest prospect for survival while avoiding futile treatments.

The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score to predict death among nonpalliative patients with COVID-19 presenting to emergency departments: a derivation and validation study.

Background:Predicting mortality from COVID-19 using information available when patients present to the emergency department can inform goals-of-care decisions and assist with ethical allocation of critical care resources. The study objective was to develop and validate a clinical score to predict emergency department and in-hospital mortality among consecutive nonpalliative patients with COVID-19; in this study, we define palliative patients as those who do not want resuscitative measures, such as intubation, intensive care unit care or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Methods:This derivation and validation study used observational cohort data recruited from 46 hospitals in 8 Canadian provinces participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN). We included adult (age ≥ 18 yr) nonpalliative patients with confirmed COVID-19 who presented to the emergency department of a participating site between Mar. 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation, and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting emergency department and in-hospital mortality in a validation cohort.Results:Of 8761 eligible patients, 618 (7.0%) died. The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score included age, sex, type of residence, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate and level of respiratory support. The area under the curve was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90–0.93) in derivation and 0.92 (95% CI 0.90–0.93) in validation. The score had excellent calibration. These results suggest that scores of 6 or less would categorize patients as being at low risk for in-hospital death, with a negative predictive value of 99.9%. Patients in the low-risk group had an in-hospital mortality rate of 0.1%. Patients with a score of 15 or higher had an observed mortality rate of 81.0%.Interpretation:The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score is a simple score that can be used for level-of-care discussions with patients and in situations of critical care resource constraints to accurately predict death using variables available on emergency department arrival. The score was derived and validated mostly in unvaccinated patients, and before variants of concern were circulating widely and newer treatment regimens implemented in Canada. Study registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04702945

Crisis Standards of Care—More Than Just a Thought Experiment?

As described in two articles in the September-October 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report, most crisis standards of care (CSC) plans include triage algorithms to guide the allocation of critical care resources to some patients and not others under conditions of extreme scarcity. The plans also include other important CSC strategies, but it is the notion of rationing scarce resources via triage that especially captured the imaginations of ethicists. Vigorous arguments have arisen over whether triage algorithms should be designed to prioritize patients based on predictions of short-, near-, or long-term survival. Additionally, there are ongoing debates about the ability of current algorithms to estimate patient survival accurately enough to be useful in triage and about the role of values like equity in triage protocols. Relatively few debates have noted, however, that while the development of CSC triage protocols has been based in medicine, public health, and ethics, the activation of CSC plans remains a political decision.

Assessment of Critical Care Surge Capacity During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan.

Japan has the highest proportion of older adults worldwide but has fewer critical care beds than most high-income countries. Although the COVID-19 infection rate in Japan is low compared with Europe and the United States, by the end of 2020, several infected people died in ambulances because they could not find hospitals to accept them. Our study aimed to examine the Japanese healthcare system's capacity to accommodate critically ill COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. We created a model to estimate bed and staff capacity at 3 levels of pandemic response (conventional, contingency, and crisis), as defined by the US National Academy of Medicine, and the function of Japan's healthcare system at each level. We then compared our estimates of the number of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care at peak times with the national health system capacity using expert panel data. Our findings suggest that Japan's healthcare system currently can accommodate only a limited number of critically ill COVID-19 patients. It could accommodate the surge of pandemic demands by converting nonintensive care unit beds to critical care beds and using nonintensive care unit staff for critical care. However, bed and staff capacity should not be expanded uniformly, so that the limited number of physicians and nurses are allocated efficiently and so staffing does not become the bottleneck of the expansion. Training and deploying physicians and nurses to provide immediate intensive care is essential. The key is to introduce and implement the concept and mechanism of tiered staffing in the Japanese healthcare system. More importantly, most intensive care facilities in Japanese hospitals are small-scaled and thinly distributed in each region. The government needs to introduce an efficient system for smooth dispatching of medical personnel among hospitals regardless of their founding institutions.

One minute sit-to-stand test as a potential triage marker in COVID-19 patients: A pilot observational study

BackgroundThe crisis of critical care resource allocation during the novel coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has underscored the importance of triage. COVID-19 is associated with increased hypoxemia and desaturation on exertion. We hypothesized that desaturation after 1-min sit-to-stand test (1MSTS), a validated field exercise test can serve as a potential marker for triage of COVID 19 patients. MethodsSubjects with proven COVID 19 without hypoxemia on ambient air at presentation underwent the 1MSTS. The demographic details, clinical profile, pre and post-test vitals and pulse oximetric saturation was recorded and they were followed up for outcome throughout the hospital stay and after discharge. Results55 mild cases of COVID-19 and 6 cases of recovering severe COVID-19 were included. The mild cohort had a median age of 35 years (IQR, 27–41.5) and a median hospital stay of 16 days (IQR 14,20). The severe cohort had a median age of 47.5 years (IQR, 42.3,54.3) and median intensive care and hospital stays of respectively 9 (IQR, 7.5,9) and 23.5 (IQR, 21.5,27) days. The two cohorts showed median desaturations of 0% (IQR, 0.5–1) and 5.5% (IQR, 4.3–6) respectively. No subjects in the mild cohort needed oxygen therapy or escalation of care to intensive care. ConclusionsSignificant desaturation after 1-MSTSin severe COVID 19 patients demonstrates the potential role of 1-MSTS both in triage for planning care and as a discharge criteria from intensive care unit. However, larger prospective studies are warranted for its evaluation and establishment of relevant cut-offs.

Comparing Critical Care Admissions Among Urban Populations Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, reassessing intensive care unit (ICU) use by population should be a priority for hospitals planning for critical care resource allocation. In our study, we reviewed the impact of COVID-19 on a community hospital serving an urban region, comparing the sociodemographic distribution of ICU admissions before and during the pandemic. We executed a time-sensitive analysis to see if COVID-19 ICU admissions reflect the regional sociodemographic populations and ICU admission trends before the pandemic. Sociodemographic variables included sex, race, ethnicity, and age of adult patients (ages 18 years and older) admitted to the hospital's medical and cardiac ICUs, which were converted to COVID-19 ICUs. The time period selected was 18 months, which was then dichotomized into pre-COVID-19 admissions (December 1, 2018 to March 13, 2020) and COVID-19 ICU admissions (March 14 to May 31, 2020). Variables were compared using Fisher's exact tests and Wilcoxon tests when appropriate. During the 18-month period, 1,861 patients were admitted to the aforementioned ICUs. The mean age of the patients was 62.75 (SD 15.57), with the majority of these patients being male (52.23%), White (64.43%), and non-Hispanic/Latinx (95.75%). Differences were found in racial and ethnic distribution comparing pre-COVID-19 admissions to COVID-19 admissions. Compared with pre-COVID-19 ICU admissions, we found an increase in African American versus White admissions (P = .01) and an increase in Hispanic/Latinx versus non-Hispanic/Latinx admissions (P < .01), during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the first 3 months of admissions to COVID-19 ICUs, the number of admissions among Hispanic/Latinx and African American patients increased while the number of admissions among non-Hispanic/Latinx and White patient decreased, compared with the pre-COVID-19 period. These findings support development of strategies to enhance allocation of resources to bolster novel, equitable strategies to mitigate the incidence of COVID-19 in urban populations.

Existing Crisis Standards of Care Triage Protocols May Not Significantly Differentiate Between Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Who Require Intensive Care.

Objectives:To determine how several existing crisis standards of care triage protocols would have distinguished between patients with coronavirus disease 2019 requiring intensive care.Design:Retrospective cohort study.Setting:Single urban academic medical center.Patients:One-hundred twenty patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who required intensive care and mechanical ventilation.Interventions:None.Measurements and Main Results:The characteristics of each patient at the time of ICU triage were used to determine how patients would have been prioritized using four crisis standards of care protocols. The vast majority of patients in the cohort would have been in the highest priority group using a triage protocol focusing on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment alone. Prioritization based on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and 1-year life expectancy would have resulted in only slightly more differentiation between patients. Prioritization based on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and 5-year life expectancy would have added significant additional differentiation depending on how priority groups were defined.Conclusions:There is considerable controversy regarding the use of criteria other than prognosis for short-term survival in initial allocation of critical care resources under crisis standards of care triage protocols. To the extent that initial triage protocols would not create sufficient differentiation between patients, effectively resulting in a first-come, first-served initial allocation of resources, it is important to focus on how resources would be reallocated in the event of ongoing scarcity.

Developing a Thai national critical care allocation guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review and stakeholder consultation

BackgroundAt the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Thailand had almost depleted its critical care resources, particularly intensive care unit (ICU) beds and ventilators. This prompted the necessity to develop a national guideline for resource allocation. This paper describes the development process of a national guideline for critical resource allocation in Thailand during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe guideline development process consisted of three steps: (1) rapid review of existing rationing guidelines and literature; (2) interviews of Thai clinicians experienced in caring for COVID-19 cases; and (3) multi-stakeholder consultations. At steps 1 and 2, data was synthesized and categorized using a thematic and content analysis approach, and this guided the formulation of the draft guideline. Within step 3, the draft Thai critical care allocation guideline was debated and finalized before entering the policy-decision stage.ResultsThree-order prioritization criteria consisting of (1) clinical prognosis using four tools (Charlson Comorbidity Index, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, frailty assessment and cognitive impairment assessment), (2) number of life-years saved and (3) social usefulness were proposed by the research team based on literature reviews and interviews. At consultations, stakeholders rejected using life-years as a criterion due to potential age and gender discrimination, as well as social utility due to a concern it would foster public distrust, as this judgement can be arbitrary. It was agreed that the attending physician is required to be the decision-maker in the Thai medico-legal context, while a patient review committee would play an advisory role. Allocation decisions are to be documented for transparency, and no appealing mechanism is to be applied. This guideline will be triggered only when demand exceeds supply after the utmost efforts to mobilize surge capacity. Once implemented, it is applicable to all patients, COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, requiring critical care resources prior to ICU admission and during ICU stay.ConclusionsThe guideline development process for the allocation of critical care resources in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak in Thailand was informed by scientific evidence, medico-legal context, existing norms and societal values to reduce risk of public distrust given the sensitive nature of the issue and ethical dilemmas of the guiding principle, though it was conducted at record speed. Our lessons can provide an insight for the development of similar prioritization guidelines, especially in other low- and middle-income countries.

Approaches to critical care resource allocation and triage during the COVID-19 pandemic: an examination from a developing world perspective.

The article's abstract is not available.

Allocation of Mechanical Ventilators During a Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Study of Perceptions Among Japanese Health Care Workers and the General Public

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.

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

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Development of a structured process for fair allocation of critical care resources in the setting of insufficient capacity: a discussion paper

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic there was widespread concern that healthcare systems would be overwhelmed, and specifically, that there would be insufficient critical care capacity in terms of beds, ventilators...

Factors associated with disease severity and mortality among patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Understanding the factors associated with disease severity and mortality in Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is imperative to effectively triage patients. We performed a systematic review to determine the demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiological factors associated with severity and mortality in COVID-19. We searched PubMed, Embase and WHO database for English language articles from inception until May 8, 2020. We included Observational studies with direct comparison of clinical characteristics between a) patients who died and those who survived or b) patients with severe disease and those without severe disease. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two authors independently. Among 15680 articles from the literature search, 109 articles were included in the analysis. The risk of mortality was higher in patients with increasing age, male gender (RR 1.45, 95%CI 1.23-1.71), dyspnea (RR 2.55, 95%CI 1.88-2.46), diabetes (RR 1.59, 95%CI 1.41-1.78), hypertension (RR 1.90, 95%CI 1.69-2.15). Congestive heart failure (OR 4.76, 95%CI 1.34-16.97), hilar lymphadenopathy (OR 8.34, 95%CI 2.57-27.08), bilateral lung involvement (OR 4.86, 95%CI 3.19-7.39) and reticular pattern (OR 5.54, 95%CI 1.24-24.67) were associated with severe disease. Clinically relevant cut-offs for leukocytosis(>10.0 x109/L), lymphopenia(< 1.1 x109/L), elevated C-reactive protein(>100mg/L), LDH(>250U/L) and D-dimer(>1mg/L) had higher odds of severe disease and greater risk of mortality. Knowledge of the factors associated of disease severity and mortality identified in our study may assist in clinical decision-making and critical-care resource allocation for patients with COVID-19.

Development of a framework for critical care resource allocation for the COVID-19 pandemic in Saskatchewan.

KEY POINTS In March 2020, health authorities throughout Canada developed frameworks for resource allocation to address potentially overwhelming demand for critical care resources because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We describe the ethical principles and process used in Saskatchewan to

Critical-care resource allocation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Singapore: A brief narrative review

In the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, where cases continue to increase exponentially every day, it is important to consider the future implications that this may have on the health-care system, the most feared situation being a shortage of critical-care resources, where difficult decisions have to be made about the allocation of scarce resources. In this brief narrative review, we conduct literature searches for COVID-19 ethical guidelines on critical-care resource allocation. Synthesising this information, we evaluate the relevant ethical principles and thereafter provide recommendations contextualised to Singapore. This brief narrative review aims to serve as a useful set of guiding principles for health-care professionals in Singapore, should the need for allocation of scarce resources arise.

Health equity and distributive justice considerations in critical care resource allocation

Amid the possibility of resource shortages in health care during a public health crisis, guiding principles established by several groups advocate for allocating life-sustaining treatments on the basis of a patient's chances of survival, resulting in an approach of saving the most lives possible.1 To assist in this approach, many triage frameworks use acute illness scores to predict short-term mortality.1 The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA)2 score has received attention as a mortality prediction tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and is likely to be used by hospitals in some manner as a triage tool.