tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Eur J Anaesthesiol
. 2020 Dec 18;Publish Ahead of Print.
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001423. Online ahead of print.
Treating patients across European Union borders: An international survey in light of the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic
Elisabeth H Adam[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Armin N Flinspach, Radmilo Jankovic, Stefan De Hert, Kai Zacharowski, Board of Directors of ESAIC
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: In light of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, how resources are managed and the critically ill are allocated must be reviewed. Although ethical recommendations have been published, strategies for dealing with overcapacity of critical care resources have so far not been addressed.
Objectives: Assess expert opinion for allocation preferences regarding the growing imbalance between supply and demand for medical resources.
Design: A 10-item questionnaire was developed and sent to the most prominent members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC).
Setting: Survey via a web-based platform.
Patients: Respondents were members of the National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee and Council Members of the ESAIC; 74 of 80 (92.5%), responded to the survey.
Measurements and main results: Responses were analysed thematically. The majority of respondents (83.8%), indicated that resources for COVID-19 were available at the time of the survey. Of the representatives of the ESAIC governing bodies, 58.9% favoured an allocation of excess critical care capacity: 69% wished to make them available to supraregional patients, whereas 30.9% preferred to keep the resources available for the local population. Regarding the type of distribution of resources, 35.3% preferred to make critical care available, 32.4% favoured the allocation of medical equipment and 32.4% wished to support both options. The majority (59.5%) supported the implementation of a central European institution to manage such resource allocation.
Conclusion: Experts in critical care support the allocation of resources from centres with overcapacity. The results indicate the need for centrally administered allocation mechanisms that are not based on ethically disputable triage systems. It seems, therefore, that there is wide acceptance and solidarity among the European anaesthesiological community that local medical and human pressure should be relieved during a pandemic by implementing national and international re-allocation strategies among healthcare providers and healthcare systems.
. 2020 Dec 18;Publish Ahead of Print.
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001423. Online ahead of print.
Treating patients across European Union borders: An international survey in light of the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic
Elisabeth H Adam[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Armin N Flinspach, Radmilo Jankovic, Stefan De Hert, Kai Zacharowski, Board of Directors of ESAIC
Affiliations
- PMID: 33350712
- DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001423
Abstract
Background: In light of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, how resources are managed and the critically ill are allocated must be reviewed. Although ethical recommendations have been published, strategies for dealing with overcapacity of critical care resources have so far not been addressed.
Objectives: Assess expert opinion for allocation preferences regarding the growing imbalance between supply and demand for medical resources.
Design: A 10-item questionnaire was developed and sent to the most prominent members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC).
Setting: Survey via a web-based platform.
Patients: Respondents were members of the National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee and Council Members of the ESAIC; 74 of 80 (92.5%), responded to the survey.
Measurements and main results: Responses were analysed thematically. The majority of respondents (83.8%), indicated that resources for COVID-19 were available at the time of the survey. Of the representatives of the ESAIC governing bodies, 58.9% favoured an allocation of excess critical care capacity: 69% wished to make them available to supraregional patients, whereas 30.9% preferred to keep the resources available for the local population. Regarding the type of distribution of resources, 35.3% preferred to make critical care available, 32.4% favoured the allocation of medical equipment and 32.4% wished to support both options. The majority (59.5%) supported the implementation of a central European institution to manage such resource allocation.
Conclusion: Experts in critical care support the allocation of resources from centres with overcapacity. The results indicate the need for centrally administered allocation mechanisms that are not based on ethically disputable triage systems. It seems, therefore, that there is wide acceptance and solidarity among the European anaesthesiological community that local medical and human pressure should be relieved during a pandemic by implementing national and international re-allocation strategies among healthcare providers and healthcare systems.