Abstract
Objective As cases of COVID-19 infections surge, concerns have renewed about intensive care units (ICU) being overwhelmed and the need for specific triage protocols over winter. This study aimed to help inform triage guidance by exploring the view of lay people about factors to include in triage decisions.
Design, setting and participants Online survey between 29th May and 22nd June 2020 based on hypothetical triage dilemmas. Participants recruited from existing market research panels, representative of the UK general population. Scenarios were presented in which a single ventilator is available, and two patients require ICU admission and ventilation. Patients differed in one of: chance of survival, life expectancy, age, expected length of treatment, disability, and degree of frailty. Respondents were given the option of choosing one patient to treat, or tossing a coin to decide.
Results Seven hundred and sixty-three participated. A majority of respondents prioritized patients who would have a higher chance of survival (72-93%), longer life expectancy (78-83%), required shorter duration of treatment (88-94%), were younger (71-79%), or had a lesser degree of frailty (60-69% all p< .001). Where there was a small difference between two patients, a larger proportion elected to toss a coin to decide which patient to treat. A majority (58-86%) were prepared to withdraw treatment from a patient in intensive care who had a lower chance of survival than another patient currently presenting with COVID-19. Respondents also indicated a willingness to give higher priority to healthcare workers and to patients with young children.
Conclusion Members of the UK general public potentially support a broadly utilitarian approach to ICU triage in the face of overwhelming need. Survey respondents endorsed the relevance of patient factors currently included in triage guidance, but also factors not currently included. They supported the permissibility of reallocating treatment in a pandemic.
BMJ I, the Submitting Author has the right to grant and does grant on behalf of all authors of the Work (as defined in the below author licence), an exclusive licence and/or a non-exclusive licence for contributions from authors who are: i) UK Crown employees; ii) where BMJ has agreed a CC-BY licence shall apply, and/or iii) in accordance with the terms applicable for US Federal Government officers or employees acting as part of their official duties; on a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free basis to BMJ Publishing Group Ltd (“BMJ”) its licensees and where the relevant Journal is co-owned by BMJ to the co-owners of the Journal, to publish the Work in this journal and any other BMJ products and to exploit all rights, as set out in our licence.
The Submitting Author accepts and understands that any supply made under these terms is made by BMJ to the Submitting Author unless you are acting as an employee on behalf of your employer or a postgraduate student of an affiliated institution which is paying any applicable article publishing charge (“APC”) for Open Access articles. Where the Submitting Author wishes to make the Work available on an Open Access basis (and intends to pay the relevant APC), the terms of reuse of such Open Access shall be governed by a Creative Commons licence – details of these licences and which Creative Commons licence will apply to this Work are set out in our licence referred to above.
Other than as permitted in any relevant BMJ Author’s Self Archiving Policies, I confirm this Work has not been accepted for publication elsewhere, is not being considered for publication elsewhere and does not duplicate material already published. I confirm all authors consent to publication of this Work and authorise the granting of this licence.
Strengths and Limitations of this study
First UK survey to investigate public attitudes to pandemic triage dilemmas
Large survey, representative of the UK general population
Enables comparison of ethical arguments and existing guidance with the views of the public
Identifies relevance of specific patient factors in concrete forced choice dilemmas: may be helpful in development or revision of triage policies
Survey findings do not allow assessment of relative weight of different factors
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by a grant from the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division COVID-19 Research Response Fund. DW and JS were supported for this work by a grant from the Wellcome trust 203132/Z/16/Z. JS was supported by Wellcome trust grant 104848/Z/14/Z and, through his involvement with the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, was supported by the Victorian Government's Operational Infrastructure Support Program. The funders had no role in the preparation of this manuscript or the decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The experiment was approved by the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee [R69537/RE001].
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division COVID-19 Research Response Fund. DW and JS were supported for this work by a grant from the Wellcome trust 203132/Z/16/Z. JS was supported by Wellcome trust grant 104848/Z/14/Z and, through his involvement with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, was supported by the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program. The funders had no role in the preparation of this manuscript or the decision to submit for publication.
Competing interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare.
HZ: Contributed significantly to the formulation of survey questions, the preparation of the survey, analysis of results and the drafting of manuscript.
AK: Significant contribution to the formulation of survey questions, and to carrying out all associated statistical analyses.
WS: Significant contribution to the formulation of the survey and methodology, helping with the drafting of all sections.
JS Significant contribution to the formulation of the survey and methodology, helping with the drafting of all sections.
Data Availability
All data and materials for the survey are available through the Open Science Framework repository (https://osf.io/gta3k/)
