Public voices on tie-breaking criteria and underlying values in COVID-19 triage protocols to access critical care: a scoping review

Claudia Calderon Ramirez; Yanick Farmer; Marie-Eve Bouthillier

doi:10.1007/s44250-023-00027-9

Public voices on tie-breaking criteria and underlying values in COVID-19 triage protocols to access critical care: a scoping review

Discov Health Syst. 2023;2(1):16. doi: 10.1007/s44250-023-00027-9. Epub 2023 May 10.

Authors

Claudia Calderon Ramirez¹, Yanick Farmer², Marie-Eve Bouthillier³

Affiliations

¹ 2900 Bd Édouard-Montpetit, Montréal, Québec H3T 1J4 Canada Biomedical Sciences Program, Clinical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal.
² C.P 8888, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3P8 Canada Department of Social and Public Communication, Faculty of Communication, Université du Québec à Montréal.
³ 2900 Bd Édouard-Montpetit, Montréal, Québec H3T 1J4 Canada Department of Family and Emergency Medicine and Office of Clinical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal.

Abstract

Background: To reduce the arbitrariness in the allocation of rare resources in intensive care units (ICU) in the context of the pandemic, tiebreakers were considered in some COVID-19 triage algorithms. They were also contemplated to facilitate the tragic decisions of healthcare workers when faced with two patients with similar prognosis and only one ICU bed available. Little is known about the public's perspective on tiebreakers.

Objectives: To consolidate the available scientific literature on public consultations, particularly on tiebreakers and their underlying values. Also, to obtain an overview of the key arguments presented by the participating public and to identify potential gaps related to this topic.

Methods: The steps described by Arksey and O'Malley was the preferred method to our approach. Seven electronic databases were searched from January 2020 to April 2022, using keywords for each database: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EBM reviews, CINAHL complete. We also searched in Google and Google Scholar, and in the references of the articles found. Our analysis was mainly qualitative. A thematic analysis was performed to consider the public's perspectives on tiebreakers and their underlying values, according to these studies.

Results: Of 477 publications found, 20 were selected. They carried out public consultations through various methods: surveys (80%), interviews (20%), deliberative processes (15%) and others (5%) in various countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, and United States. Five themes emerged from our analysis. The public favored the life cycle (50%) and absolute age (45%) as a tiebreaker. Other values considered important were reciprocity, solidarity, equality, instrumental value, patient merit, efficiency, and stewardship. Among the new findings were a preference for patient nationality and those affected by COVID-19.

Conclusions: There is a preference for favoring younger patients over older patients when there is a tie between similar patients, with a slight tendency to favor intergenerational equity. Variability was found in the public's perspectives on tiebreakers and their values. This variability was related to socio-cultural and religious factors. More studies are needed to understand the public's perspective on tiebreakers.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44250-023-00027-9.

Keywords: COVID-19 triage; Clinical ethics; Public consultation; Scoping review; Tiebreakers.