Luigi Riccioni1, Francesca Ingravallo2, Giacomo Grasselli3, Davide Mazzon4, Emiliano Cingolani5, Gabrio Forti6, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky7, Riccardo Zoja8, Flavia Petrini9. 1. Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Circonvallazione Gianicolense, 87, 00152, Rome, Italy. luigiriccioni@yahoo.it. 2. Legal Medicine, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 4. UOC Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Belluno Hospital, Belluno, Italy. 5. Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Circonvallazione Gianicolense, 87, 00152, Rome, Italy. 6. Criminal Law, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. 7. Laboratorio dei Diritti Fondamentali, Collegio Carlo Alberto, Turin, Italy. 8. Institute of Legal Medicine, Department of Biomedical Sciences of Health, University of Milan, President of SIMLA, Milan, Italy. 9. President of SIAARTI, Chieti, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In early 2020, the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) published clinical ethics recommendations for the allocation of intensive care during COVID-19 pandemic emergency. Later the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) invited SIAARTI and the Italian Society of Legal and Insurance Medicine to prepare a draft document for the definition of triage criteria for intensive care during the emergency, to be implemented in case of complete saturation of care resources. METHODS: Following formal methods, including two Delphi rounds, a multidisciplinary group with expertise in intensive care, legal medicine and law developed 12 statements addressing: (1) principles and responsibilities; (2) triage; (3) previously expressed wishes; (4) reassessment and shifting to palliative care; (5) collegiality and transparency of decisions. The draft of the statements, with their explanatory comments, underwent a public consultation opened to Italian scientific or technical-professional societies and other stakeholders (i.e., associations of citizens, patients and caregivers; religious communities; industry; public institutions; universities and research institutes). Individual healthcare providers, lay people, or other associations could address their comments by e-mail. RESULTS: Eight stakeholders (including scientific societies, ethics organizations, and a religious community), and 8 individuals (including medical experts, ethicists and an association) participated to the public consultation. The stakeholders' agreement with statements was on average very high (ranging from 4.1 to 4.9, on a scale from 1-full disagreement to 5-full agreement). The 4 statements concerning triage stated that in case of saturation of care resources, the intensive care triage had to be oriented to ensuring life-sustaining treatments to as many patients as possible who could benefit from them. The decision should follow full assessment of each patient, taking into account comorbidities, previous functional status and frailty, current clinical condition, likely impact of intensive treatment, and the patient's wishes. Age should be considered as part of the global assessment of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Lacking national guidelines, the document is the reference standard for healthcare professionals in case of imbalance between care needs and available resources during a COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, and a point of reference for the medico-legal assessment in cases of dispute.
BACKGROUND: In early 2020, the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) published clinical ethics recommendations for the allocation of intensive care during COVID-19 pandemic emergency. Later the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) invited SIAARTI and the Italian Society of Legal and Insurance Medicine to prepare a draft document for the definition of triage criteria for intensive care during the emergency, to be implemented in case of complete saturation of care resources. METHODS: Following formal methods, including two Delphi rounds, a multidisciplinary group with expertise in intensive care, legal medicine and law developed 12 statements addressing: (1) principles and responsibilities; (2) triage; (3) previously expressed wishes; (4) reassessment and shifting to palliative care; (5) collegiality and transparency of decisions. The draft of the statements, with their explanatory comments, underwent a public consultation opened to Italian scientific or technical-professional societies and other stakeholders (i.e., associations of citizens, patients and caregivers; religious communities; industry; public institutions; universities and research institutes). Individual healthcare providers, lay people, or other associations could address their comments by e-mail. RESULTS: Eight stakeholders (including scientific societies, ethics organizations, and a religious community), and 8 individuals (including medical experts, ethicists and an association) participated to the public consultation. The stakeholders' agreement with statements was on average very high (ranging from 4.1 to 4.9, on a scale from 1-full disagreement to 5-full agreement). The 4 statements concerning triage stated that in case of saturation of care resources, the intensive care triage had to be oriented to ensuring life-sustaining treatments to as many patients as possible who could benefit from them. The decision should follow full assessment of each patient, taking into account comorbidities, previous functional status and frailty, current clinical condition, likely impact of intensive treatment, and the patient's wishes. Age should be considered as part of the global assessment of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Lacking national guidelines, the document is the reference standard for healthcare professionals in case of imbalance between care needs and available resources during a COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, and a point of reference for the medico-legal assessment in cases of dispute.
Authors: Adrian Taylor; Tom P Thompson; Michael Ussher; Paul Aveyard; Rachael L Murray; Tess Harris; Siobhan Creanor; Colin Green; Adam Justin Streeter; Jade Chynoweth; Wendy Ingram; Colin J Greaves; Helen Hancocks; Tristan Snowsill; Lynne Callaghan; Lisa Price; Jane Horrell; Jennie King; Alex Gude; Mary George; Charlotte Wahlich; Louisa Hamilton; Kelisha Cheema; Sarah Campbell; Dan Preece Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Olivia V Swann; Karl A Holden; Lance Turtle; Louisa Pollock; Cameron J Fairfield; Thomas M Drake; Sohan Seth; Conor Egan; Hayley E Hardwick; Sophie Halpin; Michelle Girvan; Chloe Donohue; Mark Pritchard; Latifa B Patel; Shamez Ladhani; Louise Sigfrid; Ian P Sinha; Piero L Olliaro; Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam; Peter W Horby; Laura Merson; Gail Carson; Jake Dunning; Peter J M Openshaw; J Kenneth Baillie; Ewen M Harrison; Annemarie B Docherty; Malcolm G Semple Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-08-27
Authors: Anna Maria Geretti; Alexander J Stockdale; Sophie H Kelly; Muge Cevik; Simon Collins; Laura Waters; Giovanni Villa; Annemarie Docherty; Ewen M Harrison; Lance Turtle; Peter J M Openshaw; J Kenneth Baillie; Caroline A Sabin; Malcolm G Semple Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Sara Hägg; Juulia Jylhävä; Yunzhang Wang; Hong Xu; Carina Metzner; Martin Annetorp; Sara Garcia-Ptacek; Masih Khedri; Anne-Marie Boström; Ahmadul Kadir; Anna Johansson; Miia Kivipelto; Maria Eriksdotter; Tommy Cederholm; Dorota Religa Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 7.802
Authors: Tereza Prokopová; Jan Hudec; Kamil Vrbica; Jan Stašek; Andrea Pokorná; Petr Štourač; Kateřina Rusinová; Paulína Kerpnerová; Radka Štěpánová; Adam Svobodník; Jan Maláska Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 19.334