Who to escalate during a pandemic? A retrospective observational study about decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Autor:	Beresford S; Department of Critical Care, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK., Tandon A; Department of Critical Care, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.; Department of Anaesthesia, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK., Farina S; Department of Critical Care, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK., Johnston B; Department of Critical Care, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.; Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Liverpool, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Liverpool, UK., Crews M; Department of Critical Care, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK., Welters ID; Department of Critical Care, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK I.Welters@liverpool.ac.uk.; Department of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Liverpool, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Liverpool, UK.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Emergency medicine journal : EMJ [Emerg Med J] 2023 Aug; Vol. 40 (8), pp. 549-555. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jun 16.
DOI:	10.1136/emermed-2022-212505
Abstrakt:	Background: Optimal decision-making regarding who to admit to critical care in pandemic situations remains unclear. We compared age, Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), 4C Mortality Score and hospital mortality in two separate COVID-19 surges based on the escalation decision made by the treating physician. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all referrals to critical care during the first COVID-19 surge (cohort 1, March/April 2020) and a late surge (cohort 2, October/November 2021) was undertaken. Patients with confirmed or high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection were included. A senior critical care physician assessed all patients regarding their suitability for potential intensive care unit admission. Demographics, CFS, 4C Mortality Score and hospital mortality were compared depending on the escalation decision made by the attending physician. Results: 203 patients were included in the study, 139 in cohort 1 and 64 in cohort 2. There were no significant differences in age, CFS and 4C scores between the two cohorts. Patients deemed suitable for escalation by clinicians were significantly younger with significantly lower CFS and 4C scores compared with patients who were not deemed to benefit from escalation. This pattern was observed in both cohorts. Mortality in patients not deemed suitable for escalation was 61.8% in cohort 1 and 47.4% in cohort 2 (p<0.001). Conclusions: Decisions who to escalate to critical care in settings with limited resources pose moral distress on clinicians. 4C score, age and CFS did not change significantly between the two surges but differed significantly between patients deemed suitable for escalation and those deemed unsuitable by clinicians. Risk prediction tools may be useful in a pandemic to supplement clinical decision-making, even though escalation thresholds require adjustments to reflect changes in risk profile and outcomes between different pandemic surges. Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu