Resource allocation Archives - Critical Care Science (CCS)
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2021;33(2):219-230
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20210029
To assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions.
This study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admission or refusal, as judged by a group of experts. Intensive care unit physicians were randomized to 1) an increased distraction (intervention) or a control group, 2) an intensive care unit bed scarcity or nonscarcity (availability) setting, and 3) a multiple-choice or omission (status quo) vignette scenario. The primary outcome was the proportion of appropriate intensive care unit allocations, defined as concordance with the allocation decision made by the group of experts.
We analyzed 125 physicians. Overall, distractors had no impact on the outcome; however, there was a differential drop-out rate, with fewer physicians in the intervention arm completing the questionnaire. Intensive care unit bed availability was associated with an inappropriate allocation of vignettes deemed inappropriate for intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.19 - 5.11) but not of vignettes appropriate for intensive care unit admission. There was a significant interaction with the presence of distractors (p = 0.007), with intensive care unit bed availability being associated with increased intensive care unit admission of vignettes inappropriate for intensive care unit admission in the distractor (intervention) arm (OR = 9.82; 95%CI 2.68 - 25.93) but not in the control group (OR = 1.02; 95%CI 0.38 - 2.72). Multiple choices were associated with increased inappropriate allocation in comparison to the omission group (OR = 5.18; 95%CI 1.37 - 19.61).
Intensive care unit bed availability and cognitive biases were associated with inappropriate intensive care unit allocation decisions. These findings may have implications for intensive care unit admission policies.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2021;33(2):219-230
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20210029
To assess the impact of intensive care unit bed availability, distractors and choice framing on intensive care unit admission decisions.
This study was a randomized factorial trial using patient-based vignettes. The vignettes were deemed archetypical for intensive care unit admission or refusal, as judged by a group of experts. Intensive care unit physicians were randomized to 1) an increased distraction (intervention) or a control group, 2) an intensive care unit bed scarcity or nonscarcity (availability) setting, and 3) a multiple-choice or omission (status quo) vignette scenario. The primary outcome was the proportion of appropriate intensive care unit allocations, defined as concordance with the allocation decision made by the group of experts.
We analyzed 125 physicians. Overall, distractors had no impact on the outcome; however, there was a differential drop-out rate, with fewer physicians in the intervention arm completing the questionnaire. Intensive care unit bed availability was associated with an inappropriate allocation of vignettes deemed inappropriate for intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.47; 95%CI 1.19 - 5.11) but not of vignettes appropriate for intensive care unit admission. There was a significant interaction with the presence of distractors (p = 0.007), with intensive care unit bed availability being associated with increased intensive care unit admission of vignettes inappropriate for intensive care unit admission in the distractor (intervention) arm (OR = 9.82; 95%CI 2.68 - 25.93) but not in the control group (OR = 1.02; 95%CI 0.38 - 2.72). Multiple choices were associated with increased inappropriate allocation in comparison to the omission group (OR = 5.18; 95%CI 1.37 - 19.61).
Intensive care unit bed availability and cognitive biases were associated with inappropriate intensive care unit allocation decisions. These findings may have implications for intensive care unit admission policies.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2017;29(2):154-162
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20170025
To evaluate the factors potentially associated with the decision of admission to the intensive care unit in Brazil.
An electronic survey of Brazilian physicians working in intensive care units. Fourteen variables that were potentially associated with the decision of admission to the intensive care unit were rated as important (from 1 to 5) by the respondents and were later grouped as "patient-related," "scarcity-related" and "administrative-related" factors. The workplace and physician characteristics were evaluated for correlation with the factor ratings.
During the study period, 125 physicians completed the survey. The scores on patient-related factors were rated higher on their potential to affect decisions than scarcity-related or administrative-related factors, with a mean ± SD of 3.42 ± 0.7, 2.75 ± 0.7 and 2.87 ± 0.7, respectively (p < 0.001). The patient's underlying illness prognosis was rated by 64.5% of the physicians as always or frequently affecting decisions, followed by acute illness prognosis (57%), number of intensive care unit beds available (56%) and patient's wishes (53%). After controlling for confounders, receiving specific training on intensive care unit triage was associated with higher ratings of the patient-related factors and scarcity-related factors, while working in a public intensive care unit (as opposed to a private intensive care unit) was associated with higher ratings of the scarcity-related factors.
Patient-related factors were more frequently rated as potentially affecting intensive care unit admission decisions than scarcity-related or administrative-related factors. Physician and workplace characteristics were associated with different factor ratings.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2017;29(2):154-162
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20170025
To evaluate the factors potentially associated with the decision of admission to the intensive care unit in Brazil.
An electronic survey of Brazilian physicians working in intensive care units. Fourteen variables that were potentially associated with the decision of admission to the intensive care unit were rated as important (from 1 to 5) by the respondents and were later grouped as "patient-related," "scarcity-related" and "administrative-related" factors. The workplace and physician characteristics were evaluated for correlation with the factor ratings.
During the study period, 125 physicians completed the survey. The scores on patient-related factors were rated higher on their potential to affect decisions than scarcity-related or administrative-related factors, with a mean ± SD of 3.42 ± 0.7, 2.75 ± 0.7 and 2.87 ± 0.7, respectively (p < 0.001). The patient's underlying illness prognosis was rated by 64.5% of the physicians as always or frequently affecting decisions, followed by acute illness prognosis (57%), number of intensive care unit beds available (56%) and patient's wishes (53%). After controlling for confounders, receiving specific training on intensive care unit triage was associated with higher ratings of the patient-related factors and scarcity-related factors, while working in a public intensive care unit (as opposed to a private intensive care unit) was associated with higher ratings of the scarcity-related factors.
Patient-related factors were more frequently rated as potentially affecting intensive care unit admission decisions than scarcity-related or administrative-related factors. Physician and workplace characteristics were associated with different factor ratings.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2009;21(4):432-436
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2009000400014
The world is aging. In Brazil, and in several other countries in the world, changes in population's age composition have been accompanied by an increase in demand for types of health care whose cost is high. Actually, some moral conflicts are arising from allocation of public resources for health, because the magnitude of social inequalities in health and limited resources require that priorities for public management are based on knowledge of the health situation and the impact of policies, programs, projects and actions on health. In this context, the intensive medicine, managers and physicians in intensive care are subject to moral conflicts, especially at the fair micro allocation resources for the elderly in the intensive care unit level. This paper attempts to review the situation of conflicts in the light of the tools of bioethics.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2009;21(4):432-436
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2009000400014
The world is aging. In Brazil, and in several other countries in the world, changes in population's age composition have been accompanied by an increase in demand for types of health care whose cost is high. Actually, some moral conflicts are arising from allocation of public resources for health, because the magnitude of social inequalities in health and limited resources require that priorities for public management are based on knowledge of the health situation and the impact of policies, programs, projects and actions on health. In this context, the intensive medicine, managers and physicians in intensive care are subject to moral conflicts, especially at the fair micro allocation resources for the elderly in the intensive care unit level. This paper attempts to review the situation of conflicts in the light of the tools of bioethics.
Search
Search in:
Case reports (56) Child (53) Coronavirus infections (34) COVID-19 (46) Critical care (115) Critical illness (54) Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (26) Infant, newborn (27) Intensive care (72) Intensive care units (256) Intensive care units, pediatric (31) mechanical ventilation (38) Mortality (76) Physical therapy modalities (28) Prognosis (61) Respiration, artificial (119) Respiratory insufficiency (26) risk factors (34) SARS-CoV-2 (28) Sepsis (98)
