DeMartino, Erin S.

ImportanceIncarcerated patients admitted to the hospital face threats to their rights to privacy and self-determination in medical decision-making. Little is known about medical decision-making processes for hospitalized incarcerated persons who lack decisional capacity.ObjectiveTo characterize the prevalence of incapacity among hospitalized incarcerated patients and describe the decision-making processes, including who served as surrogate decision-makers, involvement of prison employees in medical decisions, and ethical concerns emerging from the patients’ care.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRetrospective descriptive and qualitative study of medical records for all patients admitted from prison for at least 24 hours between January 1, 1999, and September 1, 2019, at a large Midwestern academic medical center. Data analysis was performed from March 15, 2021, to December 14, 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrevalence of prison-to-hospital admissions for patients with a loss of capacity and characteristics of medical decision-making.ResultsDuring the 20-year study period, 462 patients from the prison were admitted to the hospital, totaling 967 unique admissions. Of these, 131 admissions (14%) involved patients with a loss of capacity and 43 admissions (4%, representing 34 unique patients) required surrogate decision-making. Ten of these patients had advance directives. Surrogate decision-makers often faced decisions about end-of-life care (n = 17) or procedural consent (n = 23). A family member was identified as surrogate decision-maker in 23 admissions. In 6 cases with a kindred surrogate, additional consent was requested from a prison employee. In total, prison employees were documented as being present during or participating in major medical decisions for half of the admissions. Five themes emerged from thematic analysis: uncertainty and misinformation about patient rights and the role of prison employees in medical decision-making with respect to these two themes, privacy violations, deference to prison officials, and estrangement from family and friends outside of the prison.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this first in-depth description, to date, of decision-making practices for hospitalized incarcerated patients lacking decisional capacity, admissions of these patients generated uncertainty about their rights, sometimes infringing on patients’ privacy and autonomy. Clinicians will encounter incarcerated patients in both hospital and clinic settings and should receive education on how to support ethically and legally sound decision-making practices for this medically vulnerable population.

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.