Ten things to consider when implementing rationing guidelines during a pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Supady A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7937357 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Ten things to consider when implementing rationing guidelines during a pandemic.
Supady Alexander A Brodie Daniel D Curtis J Randall JR
Intensive care medicine 20210307 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:Macromolecular refinement is an optimization process that aims to produce the most likely macromolecular structural model in the light of experimental data. As such, macromolecular refinement is one of the most complex optimization problems in wide use. Macromolecular refinement programs have to deal with the complex relationship between the parameters of the atomic model and the experimental data, as well as a large number of types of prior knowledge about chemical structure. This paper draws attention to areas of unfinished business in the field of macromolecular refinement. In it, we describe ten refinement topics that we think deserve attention and discuss directions leading to macromolecular refinement software that would make the best use of modern computer resources to meet the needs of structural biologists of the twenty-first century.
| S-EPMC8647177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFaced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators.Research questionHow have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans?Study design and methodsThis was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration.ResultsThirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy.InterpretationGuidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.
| S-EPMC8423769 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7273118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences.To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence.We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.
| S-EPMC4977650 | biostudies-other
Project description:The European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) published recommendations regarding protection for the paediatric endoscopist during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.The aim of this survey was to investigate whether European paediatric gastroenterology centres applied the recommendations and how this extraordinary situation was handled by the different centres.ResultsTwelve paediatric European gastroenterology centres participated. Nine centres (75%) screened their patients for possible COVID-19 infection before the procedure, the same amount of hospitals changed their practice based on the ESPGHAN recommendations. Six-seven percentage of the centres reduced the staff in the endoscopy suite, 83% of the units used FFP2/3 masks and protective goggles during the procedure and 75% wore waterproof gowns.ConclusionUniform guidelines could not be applied by all European hospitals at a certain time point of the viral spread, as different regions of Europe were not only affected differently by COVID-19, but also had different access to personal protective equipment.
| S-EPMC8162040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgeons need guidance regarding appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic based on scientific evidence rather than availability. The aim of this article is to inform surgeons of appropriate PPE requirements, and to discuss usage, availability, rationing and future solutions.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, Embase and WHO COVID-19 databases. Newspaper and internet article sources were identified using Nexis. The search was complemented by bibliographic secondary linkage. The findings were analysed alongside guidelines from the WHO, Public Health England, the Royal College of Surgeons and specialty associations.ResultsOf a total 1329 articles identified, 95 studies met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations made by the WHO regarding the use of PPE in the COVID-19 pandemic have evolved alongside emerging evidence. Medical resources including PPE have been rapidly overwhelmed. There has been a global effort to overcome this by combining the most effective use of existing PPE with innovative strategies to produce more. Practical advice on all aspects of PPE is detailed in this systematic review.ConclusionAlthough there is a need to balance limited supplies with staff and patient safety, this should not leave surgeons treating patients with inadequate PPE.
| S-EPMC7273092 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9255843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many human malignancies are associated with aberrant regulation of protein or lipid kinases due to mutations, chromosomal rearrangements and/or gene amplification. Protein and lipid kinases represent an important target class for treating human disorders. This review focus on 'the 10 things you should know about protein kinases and their inhibitors', including a short introduction on the history of protein kinases and their inhibitors and ending with a perspective on kinase drug discovery. Although the '10 things' have been, to a certain extent, chosen arbitrarily, they cover in a comprehensive way the past and present efforts in kinase drug discovery and summarize the status quo of the current kinase inhibitors as well as knowledge about kinase structure and binding modes. Besides describing the potentials of protein kinase inhibitors as drugs, this review also focus on their limitations, particularly on how to circumvent emerging resistance against kinase inhibitors in oncological indications.
| S-EPMC4439867 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7595267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The care of patients with endometriosis has been complicated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Medical and allied healthcare appointments and surgeries are being temporarily postponed. Mandatory self-isolation has created new obstacles for individuals with endometriosis seeking pain relief and improvement in their quality of life. Anxieties may be heightened by concerns over whether endometriosis may be an underlying condition that could predispose to severe COVID-19 infection and what constitutes an appropriate indication for presentation for urgent treatment in the epidemic. Furthermore, the restrictions imposed due to COVID-19 can impose negative psychological effects, which patients with endometriosis may be more prone to already. In combination with medical therapies, or as an alternative, we encourage patients to consider self-management strategies to combat endometriosis symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. These self-management strategies are divided into problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies, with the former aiming to change the environment to alleviate pain, and the latter address the psychology of living with endometriosis. We put forward this guidance, which is based on evidence and expert opinion, for healthcare providers to utilize during their consultations with patients via telephone or video. Patients may also independently use this article as an educational resource. The strategies discussed are not exclusively restricted to consideration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most have been researched before this period of time and all will continue to be a part of the biopsychological approach to endometriosis long after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted.
| S-EPMC7263080 | biostudies-literature