Smith, Alexander K.

ABSTRACT Background The COVID‐19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges to hospital system and critical care resources, leading to significant changes to operations and patient care. There are limited national data on these changes and instances of unsanctioned deviations from patient care, yet understanding the COVID response is key to future preparedness efforts. We sought to understand how hospitals and states navigated scarcity during COVID‐19, particularly in the absence of a declaration of crisis standards of care. Methods Between February 2022 and September 2022 we conducted 34 interviews with 36 leaders of U.S. states' COVID‐19 planning and response efforts. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and verified. We analyzed interviews using iterative inductive thematic analysis for descriptions of resource scarcity and changes to policies and procedures to prevent rationing lifesaving care. Results Nearly all participants described equipment and personnel scarcity in their home institution or state during COVID‐19. Hospitals across regions and states developed formal and informal coordination processes for load and resource sharing in response to influxes of high‐acuity patients, avoiding formal rationing of lifesaving resources in many regions. Participants also described unsanctioned patient triage, early discharge, and patients counseled to accept less aggressive care (e.g., premature transition to hospice) in states that had not declared crisis standards of care. Conclusions Extending limited resources and inter‐institutional collaboration helped avoid formal rationing. Yet, patient care was unquestionably impacted due to scarcity, both real and perceived. Reports of using hospital triage protocols to deny patients lifesaving care outside of formally recognized crisis conditions and attempts to nudge patients to accept less‐resource‐intensive care are concerning. This may have had disproportionate effects on older adults, individuals with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minoritized groups. To avoid unsanctioned deviations from standard practice in future health emergencies, we recommend that transparent and equitable triage protocols are implemented with robust oversight.

Abstract Rationale: The US prison population carries a high burden of chronic disease and disability, with older adults constituting the fastest growing subpopulation. When medical needs exceed a prison's healthcare service capabilities, incarcerated patients are transported to clinics and hospitals in surrounding communities. The influence of prison policies on off-site medical care of incarcerated patients is poorly understood. This study aims to identify and classify correctional policies regulating the care of incarcerated patients in community hospitals. Methods: Between 6/2024-10/2024 we searched the Internet for policies from states’ Departments of Corrections (DOC) pertaining to healthcare of incarcerated patients. We compiled, reconciled and organized those policies according to date, jurisdiction and relevance to hospital care. We then developed a preliminary thematic coding scheme and, using mixed inductive and deductive content analysis, two coders independently applied our codebook to each policy. Any coding discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and when necessary, with adjudication by a third team member. Results: Forty-eight state DOCs and the District of Columbia (totaling 49 “states”) have publicly available policies pertaining to healthcare. Among these, 20/49 (41%) have policies pertaining to the protection of bodily privacy during healthcare encounters. Separately, 31 (63%) have policies regarding the confidentiality of incarcerated patients’ medical encounters and records. Thirty-four (69%) maintain policies regarding incarcerated individuals’ right to select and consent to treatment. Thirty-three (67%) include language about the right to refuse treatment. Twenty-six states (53%) direct that incarcerated individuals be informed of their right to access healthcare either in writing (22/49; 45%), verbally (20/49; 41%), or through posted signage (5/49; 10%). Twenty-one states (43%) address shackling during off-site medical care, but only 15 (31%) address responding to requests from off-site clinicians to minimize or remove patients’ restraints. Just 4/49 states (8%) use person-centered language (avoiding terms like “offender” and “inmate”). Policy excerpts addressing key domains are depicted in the Table. Conclusions: Correctional policies regarding the care of incarcerated patients in community hospitals vary significantly in scope and content across states. While incarcerated people have a Constitutionally protected right to accept or refuse healthcare, including making their own treatment decisions, many state policies do not explicitly mandate how these disclosures must be communicated to patients or their healthcare providers. These silences, when combined with security measures like shackling and the ubiquitous presence of officers, countermand person-centered care and undermine the ability of hospital healthcare professionals to uphold the rights and dignity of incarcerated patients.

Importance 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. Objective To analyze the role of comorbidities and long-term prognosis in state triage procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants 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. Main Outcomes and Measures Prevalence and contents of lists of comorbidities and their stated function in triage and instructions to predict duration of postdischarge survival. Results 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. Conclusions and Relevance 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 American Geriatrics Society convened a conference in Bethesda, Maryland, to explore models and studies of aging. This was the second of three conferences, supported by a U13 grant from the National Institute on Aging, to aid recipients of Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) in integrating geriatrics into their specialties. Recognizing that aging is the largest risk factor for multiple chronic diseases and age‐related loss of resilience, the conference organizers focused scientific sessions on how targeting age‐related mechanisms can delay, prevent, or reverse geriatric syndromes, age‐related chronic diseases, and loss of resilience. The rationale for studying models of aging as well as study designs, strategies, and challenges of studying human aging were reviewed. This article provides a summary of the full conference report, Models and Studies of Aging: Report from the U13 Conference Series, and summarizes key take‐home messages that were designed to support GEMSSTAR awardees in developing their research careers focused on aging research (see supplementary text for the full report). J Am Geriatr Soc 67:428–433, 2019.