Ennis, Jackson S.

Abstract Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic exposed underrecognized structural deficiencies in pandemic preparedness across the US, particularly impacting marginalized and medically vulnerable populations. State leaders who were developing policies to allocate critical care resources, often called crisis standards of care (CSC), confronted challenges such as whether and how to incorporate age and chronic conditions into triage protocols, how to contend with imperfect illness acuity scores such as the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), and whether essential worker status or area deprivation index (ADI) ought to confer an advantage during triage. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis to highlight CSC writers’ approach to ethical challenges, including from states whose policies provoked corrective action from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). This study explores how state leaders navigated ethical controversies underlying states’ CSC policies, including whether those controversies were satisfactorily resolved. Methods Between February-September 2022 we conducted semi-structured interviews of public health leaders tasked with developing their states’ (CSC) policies. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a codebook was developed iteratively, using inductively and deductively derived themes based on principles of grounded theory. The codebook was systematically applied to transcripts; disputes were resolved by consensus discussion among analytic team members. Results Leaders from 34 states were interviewed. Participants described how their states’ CSC policy writing committees considered the role of age in triage, some proposing age as a tiebreaker, or considering age only if coupled with measures of frailty or chronic illness, with others proposing age as an “exclusion criterion.” Many leaders acknowledged a controversial approach to disability in early versions of their policies, some describing how they responded to civil rights complaints. Participants described debates over whether pandemic triage decisions should advantage patients from underserved populations or affirmatively consider essential worker status or pregnancy. While most leaders regretted that early iterations of their policies stood to exacerbate health disparities, others described a less conciliatory response to civil rights complaints. In particular, triage exclusion criteria, whereby certain patients would be excluded outright from certain resources, provoked intense debate. Conclusion We describe ethical controversies that stymied CSC policy writing committees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Leaders described spirited debate around how age, disability, and justice ought to factor into triage; few described satisfactory resolution to those debates. Improved community engagement and adherence to civil rights protections in CSC are imperative to protect marginalized populations as we prepare for future calamites, whether global or local. This abstract is funded by: R03 AG73987; K76 AG88403

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.

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.

Background: Polygenic risk testing examines variation across multiple genes to estimate a risk score for a particular disease, including risk scores for many common, chronic health conditions. Although polygenic risk information (PRI) may be a promising tool for enhancing preventive counseling and facilitating early identification of disease, its potential impact on primary-care encounters and disease prevention efforts has not been well characterized. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients to assess their understandings of PRI and their beliefs about its relevance to disease prevention. Results: We completed interviews with 19 participants. Participants described enthusiasm for the generation of PRI and recognized its utility for disease prevention. Participants also described the value of PRI as limited if not corroborated by non-genetic risk factors. Finally, participants noted that PRI, by itself, would be insufficient as a trigger for initiating many preventive interventions. Conclusion: PRI has the potential to become an important tool in primary care. However, patient views about PRI as well as the complexities of disease prevention in the primary care context may limit the impact of PRI on disease prevention.