IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0300951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Herington & Jessica Shand & Jeanne Holden-Wiltse & Anthony Corbett & Richard Dees & Chin-Lin Ching & Margie Shaw & Xueya Cai & Martin Zand, 2024. "Investigating ethical tradeoffs in crisis standards of care through simulation of ventilator allocation protocols," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300951
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300951
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300951&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0300951?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory L Snow & Joseph R Bledsoe & Allison Butler & Emily L Wilson & Susan Rea & Sarah Majercik & Jeffrey L Anderson & Benjamin D Horne, 2020. "Comparative evaluation of the clinical laboratory-based Intermountain risk score with the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices for mortality prediction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-13, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300951. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.