Quantifying the Cost Reduction Potential for Earth Observation Satellites

Anthony Shao,J. Wertz,E. Koltz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34024-1_16

2014-08-04

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Which features of patients are morally relevant in ventilator triage? A survey of the UK public

Lok Chan,Jana Schaich Borg,Vincent Conitzer,Dominic Wilkinson,Julian Savulescu,Hazem Zohny,Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00773-0

2022-03-25

Abstract:Background: In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many health systems, including those in the UK, developed triage guidelines to manage severe shortages of ventilators. At present, there is an insufficient understanding of how the public views these guidelines, and little evidence on which features of a patient the public believe should and should not be considered in ventilator triage. Methods: Two surveys were conducted with representative UK samples. In the first survey, 525 participants were asked in an open-ended format to provide features they thought should and should not be considered in allocating ventilators for COVID-19 patients when not enough ventilators are available. In the second survey, 505 participants were presented with 30 features identified from the first study, and were asked if these features should count in favour of a patient with the feature getting a ventilator, count against the patient, or neither. Statistical tests were conducted to determine if a feature was generally considered by participants as morally relevant and whether its mean was non-neutral. Results: In Survey 1, the features of a patient most frequently cited as being morally relevant to determining who would receive access to ventilators were age, general health, prospect of recovery, having dependents, and the severity of COVID symptoms. The features most frequently cited as being morally irrelevant to determining who would receive access to ventilators are race, gender, economic status, religion, social status, age, sexual orientation, and career. In Survey 2, the top three features that participants thought should count in favour of receiving a ventilator were pregnancy, having a chance of dying soon, and having waited for a long time. The top three features that participants thought should count against a patient receiving a ventilator were having committed violent crimes in the past, having unnecessarily engaged in activities with a high risk of COVID-19 infection, and a low chance of survival. Conclusions: The public generally agreed with existing UK guidelines that allocate ventilators according to medical benefits and that aim to avoid discrimination based on demographic features such as race and gender. However, many participants expressed potentially non-utilitarian concerns, such as inclining to deprioritise ventilator allocation to those who had a criminal history or who contracted the virus by needlessly engaging in high-risk activities.
Who Should Receive Life Support During a Public Health Emergency? Using Ethical Principles to Improve Allocation Decisions

Douglas B White,Mitchell H Katz,John M Luce,Bernard Lo,Douglas B. White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-2-200901200-00011

IF: 39.2

2009-01-20

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:A public health emergency, such as an influenza pandemic, will lead to shortages of mechanical ventilators, critical care beds, and other potentially life-saving treatments. Difficult decisions about who will and will not receive these scarce resources will have to be made. Existing recommendations reflect a narrow utilitarian perspective, in which allocation decisions are based primarily on patients' chances of survival to hospital discharge. Certain patient groups, such as the elderly and those with functional impairment, are denied access to potentially life-saving treatments on the basis of additional allocation criteria. We analyze the ethical principles that could guide allocation and propose an allocation strategy that incorporates and balances multiple morally relevant considerations, including saving the most lives, maximizing the number of "life-years" saved, and prioritizing patients who have had the least chance to live through life's stages. We also argue that these principles are relevant to all patients and therefore should be applied to all patients, rather than selectively to the elderly, those with functional impairment, and those with certain chronic conditions. We discuss strategies to engage the public in setting the priorities that will guide allocation of scarce life-sustaining treatments during a public health emergency.

medicine, general & internal
Investigating ethical tradeoffs in crisis standards of care through simulation of ventilator allocation protocols

Jonathan Herington,Jessica Shand,Jeanne Holden-Wiltse,Anthony Corbett,Richard Dees,Chin-Lin Ching,Margie Shaw,Xueya Cai,Martin Zand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300951

IF: 3.7

2024-09-12

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Introduction: Arguments over the appropriate Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) for public health emergencies often assume that there is a tradeoff between saving the most lives, saving the most life-years, and preventing racial disparities. However, these assumptions have rarely been explored empirically. To quantitatively characterize possible ethical tradeoffs, we aimed to simulate the implementation of five proposed CSC protocols for rationing ventilators in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the number of lives saved and life-years saved by implementing clinical acuity-, comorbidity- and age-based CSC protocols under different shortage conditions. This model was populated with patient data from 3707 adult admissions requiring ventilator support in a New York hospital system between April 2020 and May 2021. To estimate lives and life-years saved by each protocol, we determined survival to discharge and estimated remaining life expectancy for each admission. Results: The simulation demonstrated stronger performance for age-sensitive protocols. For a capacity of 1 bed per 2 patients, ranking by age bands saves approximately 29 lives and 3400 life-years per thousand patients. Proposed protocols from New York and Maryland which allocated without considering age saved the fewest lives (~13.2 and 8.5 lives) and life-years (~416 and 420 years). Unlike other protocols, the New York and Maryland algorithms did not generate significant disparities in lives saved and life-years saved between White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic sub-populations. For all protocols, we observed a positive correlation between lives saved and life-years saved, but also between lives saved overall and inequality in the number of lives saved in different race and ethnicity sub-populations. Conclusion: While there is significant variance in the number of lives saved and life-years saved, we did not find a tradeoff between saving the most lives and saving the most life-years. Moreover, concerns about racial discrimination in triage protocols require thinking carefully about the tradeoff between enforcing equality of survival rates and maximizing the lives saved in each sub-population.
Operational Recommendations for Scarce Resource Allocation in a Public Health Crisis

Michael R Ehmann,Elizabeth K Zink,Amanda B Levin,Jose I Suarez,Harolyn M E Belcher,Elizabeth L Daugherty Biddison,Danielle J Doberman,Karen D'Souza,Derek M Fine,Brian T Garibaldi,Eric A Gehrie,Sherita H Golden,Ayse P Gurses,Peter M Hill,Mark T Hughes,Jeffrey P Kahn,Colleen G Koch,Jason J Marx,Barry R Meisenberg,Jeffrey Natterman,Cynda H Rushton,Adam Sapirstein,Stephen R Selinger,R Scott Stephens,Eric S Toner,Yoram Unguru,Maureen van Stone,Allen Kachalia,Michael R. Ehmann,Elizabeth K. Zink,Amanda B. Levin,Jose I. Suarez,Harolyn M.E. Belcher,Elizabeth L. Daugherty Biddison,Danielle J. Doberman,Karen D’Souza,Derek M. Fine,Brian T. Garibaldi,Eric A. Gehrie,Sherita H. Golden,Ayse P. Gurses,Peter M. Hill,Mark T. Hughes,Jeffrey P. Kahn,Colleen G. Koch,Jason J. Marx,Barry R. Meisenberg,Cynda H. Rushton,Stephen R. Selinger,R. Scott Stephens,Eric S. Toner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.09.246

IF: 9.6

2021-03-01

Chest

Abstract:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium-with diverse expertise and representation-representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens' values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource's varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.

respiratory system,critical care medicine
Assessment of Critical Care Surge Capacity During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan

Takanori Yamamoto,Masayuki Ozaki,Daisuke Kasugai,Gilbert Burnham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2020.0227

2021-10-01

Health Security

Abstract: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.

public, environmental & occupational health
Augmenting Resource Allocation Techniques for the Management of ICU Beds During COVID-19 Pandemic

Seyed Mohssen Ghafari,Richard Nichol,Richard A. George

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5121/csit.2020.101908

2020-12-19

Abstract:At the time of writing, more than seventy million people have been infected by COVID19 and more than one and a half million have died from the infection. A major challenge for health systems around the world is to supply ventilators and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for those patients with the most severe symptoms of the infection. Unfortunately, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries face ICU bed shortages. In situations of peak-demand, healthcare providers follow predefined strategies to allocate the available ICU beds in the most efficient way. On these occasions, physicians and healthcare workers, who swore an oath to treat the ill to the best of their ability, would have to choose not to save some patients to ensure others survive. This decision puts healthcare professionals in an ethically and emotionally challenging situation in an already stressful environment. In this paper, we propose an automatic approach for managing ICU beds in hospitals to i) create the most effective ICU resource allocation, and ii) relieve physicians of having to make decisions in this regard. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.
Ethical and Social Issues for Health Care Providers in the Intensive Care Unit during the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan: a Questionnaire Survey

Yusuke Seino,Yayoi Aizawa,Atsushi Kogetsu,Kazuto Kato

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-021-00194-y

2021-11-15

Asian Bioethics Review

Abstract:Abstract This questionnaire-based observational study was conducted in July 2020 with the aim of understanding the ethical and social issues faced by health care providers (HCPs) registered with the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine in intensive care units (ICUs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. There were 200 questionnaire respondents, and we analyzed the responses of 189 members who had been involved in COVID-19 treatment in ICUs. The ethical and social issues that HCPs recognized during the pandemic were difficulties in the decision-making process with patients’ families, limitations of life-sustaining treatment, lack of palliative care, and inadequate mental support for patients’ families and HCPs. Regarding decision-making on issues of clinical ethics during the pandemic, more than half of the respondents thought they had failed to provide sufficient palliative care to patients and responded that they experienced moral distress. The free-text responses on moral distress revealed issues such as unusual treatment and care, restricted visits, challenging situations for HCPs, and psychological burden. Additionally, 38.1% of respondents experienced episodes of social prejudice or discrimination and 4.7% experienced a shortage of medical resources. Our study result shows that the moral distress of HCPs was caused by difficulties in patient-centered decision-making and insufficient medical care to patients and their families. These were caused mainly by a lack of communication due to the stronger implementation of infection control measures. We believe that it is important to address ethical and social issues during a pandemic in order to provide appropriate medical care and prevent burnout among HCPs.

English Else
Comparison of the treatment status of patients with acute heart failure before and during the COVID-19 pandemic – Observational cohort study using Japanese administrative data

Tatsuhiro Shibata,Shingo Matsumoto,Tomoki Muramoto,Miyuki Matsukawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2024.01.004

IF: 2.974

2024-02-04

Journal of Cardiology

Abstract:Background There is a concern that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to underutilization of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in patients with acute heart failure (HF). We investigated the alterations in clinical management of acute HF during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and Results. This study was an observational study of patients treated in emergency care with acute HF, using a Japanese Administrative database for a period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 9081 overall eligible patients, the ratio of patients receiving NPPV and tracheal intubation during to before the COVID-19 pandemic were 0.88 [95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.80, 0.96] and 1.38 (95 % CI: 1.11, 1.71), respectively. Propensity score matching in patients treated in COVID-19 receiving facilities and emergency declaration response areas showed that ratio of NPPV and tracheal intubation during to before the COVID-19 pandemic were 0.88 (95 % CI: 0.76, 1.03), and 1.65 (95 % CI: 1.19, 2.28), respectively. Conclusions The implementation rate of NPPV decreased significantly in eligible patients, with a decreasing trend observed in patient populations in COVID-19 receiving facilities and emergency declaration response areas. Tracheal intubation increased in all populations. Graphical abstract Download : Download high-res image (214KB) Download : Download full-size image

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Public perspectives on COVID-19 public health and social measures in Japan and the United Kingdom: a qualitative study

Saki Kawamitsu,Tin Zar Win,Su Myat Han,Tomoka Nakamura,Melissa Jogie,Chris Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18866-3

IF: 4.5

2024-05-23

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, was one of the greatest modern public health crises that the world has faced. Countries undertook sweeping public health and social measures (PHSM); including environmental actions such as disinfection and ventilation; surveillance and response, such as contact tracing and quarantine; physical, such as crowd control; and restrictions on travel. This study focuses on the public perceptions of PHSM in two countries, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK) as examples of high-income countries that adopted different measures over the course of the pandemic. Methods This study was conducted between November 2021 and February 2022, a period in which the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 was predominant. Fourteen online focus group discussions were conducted in each country. Overall, 106 total participants (50 from the UK and 56 from Japan) participated in 23 focus groups (11 in the UK and 12 in Japan) with an average of three to six participants per group. Both countries were compared using a thematic analysis method. Results Both countries’ participants agreed that vaccination was an effective measure. However, they did not favor mandatory vaccination policies. Working from home was well accepted by both sides, but they reported that schools should have continued to be opened as before COVID-19. Both sides of participants expressed that temperature testing alone in indoor facilities was ineffective as a COVID-19 control measure. There were contrasting views on face covering rules in public spaces, international and domestic movement restrictions. High acceptance of mask-wearing was reflective of Japanese customs, while it was accepted as a strong recommendation for participants in the UK. Japanese participants favored quarantine for international travel, while the UK participants supported banning non-essential travel. Conclusion Similar and contrasting views on PHSM against COVID-19 between Japan and the UK demonstrated how policies in controlling an epidemic should be tailored by country with respect to its norms, cultures, economic and disease burden. Our findings may guide how policy makers can engage with the public through effective health communication and consider regulations that are aligned with the public’s views and capacities in changing their behavior for future pandemic preparedness.

public, environmental & occupational health
Exploring the clinical benefit of ventilation therapy across various patient groups with COVID-19 using real-world data

Mohsen Abbasi-Kangevari,Ali Ghanbari,Mohammad-Reza Malekpour,Seyyed-Hadi Ghamari,Sina Azadnajafabad,Sahar Saeedi Moghaddam,Mohammad Keykhaei,Rosa Haghshenas,Ali Golestani,Mohammad-Mahdi Rashidi,Nazila Rezaei,Erfan Ghasemi,Negar Rezaei,Hamid Reza Jamshidi,Bagher Larijani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37912-5

2023-07-03

Abstract:Scarcity of ventilators during COVID-19 pandemic has urged public health authorities to develop prioritization recommendations and guidelines with the real-time decision-making process based on the resources and contexts. Nevertheless, patients with COVID-19 who will benefit the most from ventilation therapy have not been well-defined yet. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the benefit of ventilation therapy among various patient groups with COVID-19 admitted to hospitals, based on the real-world data of hospitalized adult patients. Data used in the longitudinal study included 599,340 records of hospitalized patients who were admitted from February 2020 to June 2021. All participants were categorized based on sex, age, city of residence, the hospitals' affiliated university, and their date of hospitalization. Age groups were defined as 18-39, 40-64, and more than 65-year-old participants. Two models were used in this study: in the first model, participants were assessed by their probability of receiving ventilation therapy during hospitalization based on demographic and clinical factors using mixed-effects logistic regression. In the second model, the clinical benefit of receiving ventilation therapy among various patient groups was quantified while considering the probability of receiving ventilation therapy during hospital admission, as estimated in the first model. The interaction coefficient in the second model indicated the difference in the slope of the logit probability of recovery for a one-unit increase in the probability of receiving ventilation therapy between the patients who received ventilation compared to those who did not while considering other factors constant. The interaction coefficient was used as an indicator to quantify the benefit of ventilation reception and possibly be used as a criterion for comparison among various patient groups. Among participants, 60,113 (10.0%) cases received ventilation therapy, 85,158 (14.2%) passed away due to COVID-19, and 514,182 (85.8%) recovered. The mean (SD) age was 58.5 (18.3) [range = 18-114, being 58.3 (18.2) among women, and 58.6 (18.4) among men]. Among all groups with sufficient data for analysis, patients aged 40-64 years who had chronic respiratory diseases (CRD) and malignancy benefitted the most from ventilation therapy; followed by patients aged 65 + years who had malignancy, cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and diabetes (DM); and patients aged 18-39 years who had malignancy. Patients aged 65 + who had CRD and CVD gained the least benefit from ventilation therapy. Among patients with DM, patients aged 65 + years benefited from ventilation therapy, followed by 40-64 years. Among patients with CVD, patients aged 18-39 years benefited the most from ventilation therapy, followed by patients aged 40-64 years and 65 + years. Among patients with DM and CVD, patients aged 40-64 years benefited from ventilation therapy, followed by 65 + years. Among patients with no history of CRD, malignancy, CVD, or DM, patients aged 18-39 years benefited the most from ventilation therapy, followed by patients aged 40-64 years and 65 + years. This study promotes a new aspect of treating patients for ventilators as a scarce medical resource, considering whether ventilation therapy would improve the patient's clinical outcome. Should the prioritization guidelines for ventilators allocation take no notice of the real-world data, patients might end up being deprived of ventilation therapy, who could benefit the most from it. It could be suggested that rather than focusing on the scarcity of ventilators, guidelines focus on evidence-based decision-making algorithms to also take the usefulness of the intervention into account, whose beneficial effect is dependent on the selection of the right time in the right patient.
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on management and outcomes of patients with acute heart failure

Tomoyuki Shirahige,Taiga Matsumoto,Ayami Shigeno,Hiroyuki Funatomi,Jin Takahashi,Hiraku Funakoshi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.14922

Abstract:Aims: Guidelines recommend non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) for patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with an inadequate response to initial oxygen therapy. During Japan's coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, NPPV use in emergency departments (EDs) was limited due to aerosol-spreading concerns. This study compared the respiratory management and clinical outcomes of patients with ADHF in EDs before and during the pandemic. Methods and results: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single centre in Japan using hospital data from September to November 2019 (before the pandemic) and September to November 2020 (during the pandemic). Patients diagnosed with ADHF were included. Patients not responding to standard oxygen therapy were intubated or started on NPPV therapy. The primary outcome measure was discharge after death. The secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and medical expenses. The study included 37 patients before the pandemic and 36 during the pandemic. No significant differences were found in vital signs or laboratory data between the groups. NPPV utilization decreased significantly from 26 (70.3%) to 7 (19.4%) (P < 0.01). Two patients required intubation during both periods, with no significant differences (P = 0.98). No significant intergroup disparities were observed in discharge after death (1/36 [2.7%] vs. 1/37 [2.7%]; P = 0.19), length of hospital stay (17.5 vs. 19.0 days; P = 0.65), and medical expenses (57 590 vs. 57 600 yen; P = 0.65). Conclusions: Despite a large decrease in NPPV use before and during the pandemic, there were no significant differences in discharge after death, hospital stay, or medical expenses.
Posttraumatic growth: A psychiatric oddity

S. Balaratnasingam,A. Janča

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867412449059

2012-05-18

Abstract:A 36-year-old man presented with a letter from his solicitor requesting a psychiatric assessment detailing the nature, extent and severity of ‘psychological injury’ in order to support a claim from criminal injuries compensation. The patient had been physically assaulted by a man who demanded money from him. The man initially came up from behind the patient and hit him on the back of the head, and as the patient lay on the ground in a dazed state, the man kicked him, screaming and demanding money. The man took his money and ran away. The patient sustained a laceration to the face, conjunctival haematoma, broken nose and fracture of the left zygoma. Previously, the patient had a long history of impulsivity, aggression, dysfunctional interpersonal relationships and polysubstance abuse. This was probably because of a childhood characterized by attachment difficulties as a result of his mother leaving the family home when he was born and his father, who was a naval officer, treating him and his five siblings in a strict, harsh and emotionally distant manner. As a young child, the patient demonstrated oppositional behaviour and conduct problems, particularly at school, where he learnt to deploy aggression as a means of dominating other students. There was no improvement after being compelled by his father to see a psychologist. Upon leaving school, he had significant problems holding down a job because of anger, and he estimates that he has worked between 20 and 30 jobs in his lifetime. Most jobs ended within a few weeks or a few months because of the patient’s inability to submit to the wishes of his superiors, curb his frustration and, at times, verbal aggression and bullying behaviour towards his colleagues. The patient had been married once, for several years during his twenties, but his wife left him due to his aggressive behaviour. He has no ongoing contact with her or the two children borne from the marriage. Similarly, he had little in the way of ongoing friendships or contact with his father or his siblings. He admits to using cannabis from the age of 12 onwards, as well as amphetamines, alcohol and heroin. He was admitted to psychiatric hospitals on two occasions after the break-up of his marriage. He was apparently discharged with a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and polysubstance abuse. Following the assault, the patient was fearful, hypervigilant, socially withdrawn and unable to sleep for several weeks. These symptoms have largely resolved. Although he currently lives by himself with a pet and prefers his own company, he stated that: “I am happier than I was . . . I’m not getting into trouble anymore.” He has stopped drinking alcohol and only uses cannabis in small amounts at night. He works 30–40 hours per week as a cleaner and has kept this job for over 12 months. He has been in telephone contact with his children and is seeking ways to establish a stable relationship with them. Since the traumatic event, he has had no interpersonal or legal problems. Mental state examination was marked by a reflective, integrated affect which was congruent to the themes of conversation. He mused that he could speak without anger regarding the event and that he was a different person. He sought to impress the interviewer that whereas at one time he could have become so angry that he would have assaulted the interviewer if he did not get his way, he could be more restrained and dispassionate. He was advised that there was no diagnosable psychiatric condition or compensable ‘psychological injury’, which he accepted without protest, anger or other adverse reaction. His main focus was the future and rebuilding his relationship with his children. Psychological distress is very common in the early aftermath of traumatic exposure and can be considered a part of the normal response. A minority of people experience persistent symptoms, which may be diagnosed as posttraumatic stress disorder, and the lifetime prevalence rate of this condition for victims of crime is estimated to be about 25–28% (Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, 2007). The study of pathological reactions to trauma remains the mainstay of work in psychiatry and related disciplines such as clinical psychology and counselling. However, this case re-emphasizes some unexpected outcomes that can be observed in victims of trauma, including the concept of posttraumatic growth, which refers to positive psychological change experienced as a result of trauma (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004). Trauma represents significant challenges to the adaptive resources of the individual, their ways of understanding the world and their place in it. The concept of mentalization or reflective function allows a person to understand the behaviour of themselves or others in mental state terms. Authoritarian parenting can be associated with maltreatment and can retard the development of mentalizing capacity. Infants who experience caregivers as frightening, angry and hateful often introject these feelings and seek to control others through coercive, externalizing and punitive acts. Problems of violence and aggression can be understood as dismissive and preoccupied forms of nonmentalizing self-organizations. Others are forced to behave as if they
A Model of Supply-Chain Decisions for Resource Sharing with an Application to Ventilator Allocation to Combat COVID-19

Sanjay Mehrotra,Hamed Rahimian,Masoud Barah,Fengqiao Luo,Karolina Schantz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.01318

2020-04-03

Abstract:This paper presents a stochastic optimization model for allocating and sharing a critical resource in the case of a pandemic. The demand for different entities peaks at different times, and an initial inventory from a central agency is to be allocated. The entities (states) may share the critical resource with a different state under a risk-averse condition. The model is applied to study the allocation of ventilator inventory in the COVID-19 pandemic by the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the US Department of Homeland Security (FEMA) to different states in the US. Findings suggest that if less than 60% of the ventilator inventory is available for non-COVID-19 patients, FEMA's stockpile of 20,000 ventilators (as of 03/23/2020) would be nearly adequate to meet the projected needs. However, when more than 75% of the available ventilator inventory must be reserved for non-COVID-19 patients, various degrees of shortfall are expected. In an extreme case, where the demand is assumed to be concentrated in the top-most quartile of the forecast confidence interval, the total shortfall over the planning horizon (till 05/31/20) is about 28,500 ventilator days, with a peak shortfall of 2,700 ventilators on 04/12/20. The results also suggest that in the worse-than-average to severe demand scenario cases, NY requires between 7,600-9,200 additional ventilators for COVID-19 patients during its peak demand. However, between 400 to 2,000 of these ventilators can be given to a different state after the peak demand in NY has subsided.

Optimization and Control
Mitigating the COVID‐19 pandemic through data‐driven resource sharing

Esmaeil Keyvanshokooh,Mohammad Fattahi,Kenneth A. Freedberg,Pooyan Kazemian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.22117

2023-05-01

Abstract:COVID‐19 outbreaks in local communities can result in a drastic surge in demand for scarce resources such as mechanical ventilators. To deal with such demand surges, many hospitals (1) purchased large quantities of mechanical ventilators, and (2) canceled/postponed elective procedures to preserve care capacity for COVID‐19 patients. These measures resulted in a substantial financial burden to the hospitals and poor outcomes for non‐COVID‐19 patients. Given that COVID‐19 transmits at different rates across various regions, there is an opportunity to share portable healthcare resources to mitigate capacity shortages triggered by local outbreaks with fewer total resources. This paper develops a novel data‐driven adaptive robust simulation‐based optimization (DARSO) methodology for optimal allocation and relocation of mechanical ventilators over different states and regions. Our main methodological contributions lie in a new policy‐guided approach and an efficient algorithmic framework that mitigates critical limitations of current robust and stochastic models and make resource‐sharing decisions implementable in real‐time. In collaboration with epidemiologists and infectious disease doctors, we give proof of concept for the DARSO methodology through a case study of sharing ventilators among regions in Ohio and Michigan. The results suggest that our optimal policy could satisfy ventilator demand during the first pandemic's peak in Ohio and Michigan with 14% (limited sharing) to 63% (full sharing) fewer ventilators compared to a no sharing strategy (status quo), thereby allowing hospitals to preserve more elective procedures. Furthermore, we demonstrate that sharing unused ventilators (rather than purchasing new machines) can result in 5% (limited sharing) to 44% (full sharing) lower expenditure, compared to no sharing, considering the transshipment and new ventilator costs.
Nonconventional Ventilators During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Clinical Efficacy, Crisis Research Considerations, and Preparedness Next Steps*

Ankita Agarwal,George L. Anesi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000006292

IF: 8.8

2024-06-15

Critical Care Medicine

Abstract:In the chaotic early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, many potential shortages loomed large, but none seemed as terrifying and immediate as the potential shortage of mechanical ventilators, and the inability to support the lives of infected individuals who could not adequately breathe on their own ( 1 ). At the time of the initial pandemic surge, the United States had a finite supply of conventional full-function ventilators (i.e., those used for an intubated patient in the ICU) and basic ventilators (i.e., nonconventional ventilators [NCVs] including, portable transport ventilators and noninvasive ventilators), and an additional back-up supply in the National Strategic Stockpile. If and when there was a shortage of full-function conventional ventilators, use of basic ventilators seemed an obvious option. However NCVs, by design, do not provide all the features of full-function ventilators, and models may vary in settings and ability to provide consistent respiratory support in patients with changing pulmonary mechanics ( 2 ). Although initial projections of mechanical ventilator needs—and shortages—fortunately did not materialize nationally, supplies were exhausted in certain hospitals at certain times. The potential and realized ventilator shortages motivate the question: How did patients fare under this particular crisis standard of care? In addition, how does this inform our national preparedness strategy for inevitable future respiratory pandemics?

critical care medicine
Re-Examining the Race to Send Ventilators to Low-Resource Settings

Sreekar Mantena,Khama Rogo,Thomas F Burke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08185

Abstract:COVID-19 is devastating health systems globally and causing severe ventilator shortages. Since the beginning of the outbreak, the provision and use of ventilators has been a key focus of public discourse. Scientists and engineers from leading universities and companies have rushed to develop low-cost ventilators in hopes of supporting critically ill patients in developing countries. Philanthropists have invested millions in shipping ventilators to low-resource settings, and agencies such as the World Health Organization and the World Bank are prioritizing the purchase of ventilators. While we recognize the humanitarian nature of these efforts, merely shipping ventilators to low-resource environments may not improve outcomes of patients and could potentially cause harm. An ecosystem of considerable technological and human resources is required to support the usage of ventilators within intensive care settings. Medical-grade oxygen supplies, reliable electricity, bioengineering support, and consumables are all needed for ventilators to save lives. However, most ICUs in resource-poor settings do not have access to these resources. Patients on ventilators require continuous monitoring from physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists skilled in critical care. Health care workers in many low-resource settings are already exceedingly overburdened, and pulling these essential human resources away from other critical patient needs could reduce the overall quality of patient care. When deploying medical devices, it is vital to align the technological intervention with the clinical reality. Low-income settings often will not benefit from resource-intensive equipment, but rather from contextually appropriate devices that meet the unique needs of their health systems.
Ethics of ICU triage during COVID-19

Rasita Vinay,Holger Baumann,Nikola Biller-Andorno

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldab009

2021-06-10

Abstract:Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has placed intensive care units (ICU) triage at the center of bioethical discussions. National and international triage guidelines emerged from professional and governmental bodies and have led to controversial discussions about which criteria-e.g. medical prognosis, age, life-expectancy or quality of life-are ethically acceptable. The paper presents the main points of agreement and disagreement in triage protocols and reviews the ethical debate surrounding them. Sources of data: Published articles, news articles, book chapters, ICU triage guidelines set out by professional societies and health authorities. Areas of agreement: Points of agreement in the guidelines that are widely supported by ethical arguments are (i) to avoid using a first come, first served policy or quality-adjusted life-years and (ii) to rely on medical prognosis, maximizing lives saved, justice as fairness and non-discrimination. Areas of controversy: Points of disagreement in existing guidelines and the ethics literature more broadly regard the use of exclusion criteria, the role of life expectancy, the prioritization of healthcare workers and the reassessment of triage decisions. Growing points: Improve outcome predictions, possibly aided by Artificial intelligence (AI); develop participatory approaches to drafting, assessing and revising triaging protocols; learn from experiences with implementation of guidelines with a view to continuously improve decision-making. Areas timely for developing research: Examine the universality vs. context-dependence of triaging principles and criteria; empirically test the appropriateness of triaging guidelines, including impact on vulnerable groups and risk of discrimination; study the potential and challenges of AI for outcome and preference prediction and decision-support.
Utilitarianism and the pandemic

Julian Savulescu,Ingmar Persson,Dominic Wilkinson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12771

2020-06-11

Bioethics

Abstract:There are no egalitarians in a pandemic. The scale of the challenge for health systems and public policy means that there is an ineluctable need to prioritise the needs of the many. It is impossible to treat all citizens equally, and a failure to carefully consider the consequences of actions could lead to massive preventable loss of life.In a pandemic there is a strong ethical need to consider how to do most good overall.Utilitarianism is an influential moral theory which states that the right action is the action which is expected to produce the greatest good. It offers clear operationalizable principles. In this paper we provide a summary of how utilitarianism could inform two challenging questions that have been important in the early phase of the pandemic: <ol class=""><li>Triage: which patients should receive access to a ventilator if there is overwhelming demand outstripping supply?</li><li>Lockdown: How should countries decide when to implement stringent social restrictions, balancing preventing deaths from COVID‐19 with causing deaths and reducing in wellbeing from other causes?</li></ol>Our aim is not to argue that utilitarianism is the only relevant ethical theory, or in favour of a purely utilitarian approach. However, clearly considering which options will do the most good overall will help societies identify and consider the necessary cost of other values. Societies may choose either to embrace or not to embrace the utilitarian course, but with a clear understanding of the values involved and the price they are willing to pay.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Patients' perspectives on ethical principles to fairly allocate scarce surgical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a Q-methodology study

Anouk van Alphen,Caroline Lekkerkerker,Job van Exel,Rob Baatenburg de Jong,Kees Ahaus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086681

IF: 3.006

2024-09-23

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals were faced with prioritisation dilemmas due to limited surgical capacity. While the views of healthcare professionals on fair allocation have been given considerable attention, the views of patients have been overlooked. To address this imbalance, our study aimed to identify which ethical principles are most supported by patients regarding the fair allocation of surgical resources. Design: A Q-methodology study was conducted. Participants ranked ordered 20 statements covering different viewpoints on fair allocation according to their point of view, followed by an interview. Principal component analysis followed by varimax rotation was used to identify subgroups who broadly agreed in terms of their rankings. Setting: The setting of this study was in the Netherlands. Participants: 16 patient representatives were purposively sampled. Results: Two perspectives were identified, both of which supported utilitarianism. In perspective 1, labelled as 'clinical needs and outcomes', resource allocation should aim to maximise the health gains based on individual patient characteristics. In perspective 2, labelled as 'population outcomes and contribution to society', allocation should maximise health gains as with perspective 1, but this should also consider societal gains. Conclusions: There was a broad agreement among patient representatives that utilitarianism should be the guiding ethical principle for fair allocation of scarce surgical resources. The insights gained from this study should be integrated into policymaking and prioritisation strategies in future healthcare crises.
Developing a Thai national critical care allocation guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review and stakeholder consultation

Aniqa Islam Marshall,Rachel Archer,Woranan Witthayapipopsakul,Kanchanok Sirison,Somtanuek Chotchoungchatchai,Pisit Sriakkpokin,Orapan Srisookwatana,Yot Teerawattananon,Viroj Tangcharoensathien

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00696-z

2021-03-31

Abstract:Background: At 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. Methods: The 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. Results: Three-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. Conclusions: The 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.

Quantifying the Cost Reduction Potential for Earth Observation Satellites

Which features of patients are morally relevant in ventilator triage? A survey of the UK public

Who Should Receive Life Support During a Public Health Emergency? Using Ethical Principles to Improve Allocation Decisions

Investigating ethical tradeoffs in crisis standards of care through simulation of ventilator allocation protocols

Operational Recommendations for Scarce Resource Allocation in a Public Health Crisis

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

Augmenting Resource Allocation Techniques for the Management of ICU Beds During COVID-19 Pandemic

Ethical and Social Issues for Health Care Providers in the Intensive Care Unit during the Early Stages of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan: a Questionnaire Survey

Comparison of the treatment status of patients with acute heart failure before and during the COVID-19 pandemic – Observational cohort study using Japanese administrative data

Public perspectives on COVID-19 public health and social measures in Japan and the United Kingdom: a qualitative study

Exploring the clinical benefit of ventilation therapy across various patient groups with COVID-19 using real-world data

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on management and outcomes of patients with acute heart failure

Posttraumatic growth: A psychiatric oddity

A Model of Supply-Chain Decisions for Resource Sharing with an Application to Ventilator Allocation to Combat COVID-19

Mitigating the COVID‐19 pandemic through data‐driven resource sharing

Nonconventional Ventilators During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Clinical Efficacy, Crisis Research Considerations, and Preparedness Next Steps*

Re-Examining the Race to Send Ventilators to Low-Resource Settings

Ethics of ICU triage during COVID-19

Utilitarianism and the pandemic

Patients' perspectives on ethical principles to fairly allocate scarce surgical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a Q-methodology study

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