Rationing Limited Healthcare Resources in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond: Ethical Considerations Regarding Older Adults

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to impact older adults disproportionately with respect to serious consequences ranging from severe illness and hospitalization to increased mortality risk. Concurrently, concerns about potential shortages of healthcare professionals and health supplies to address these issues have focused attention on how these resources are ultimately allocated and used. Some strategies, for example, misguidedly use age as an arbitrary criterion that disfavors older adults in resource allocation decisions. This is a companion article to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) position statement, “Resource Allocation Strategies and Age-Related Considerations in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.” It is intended to inform stakeholders including hospitals, health systems, and policymakers about ethical considerations that should be considered when developing strategies for allocation of scarce resources during an emergency involving older adults. This review presents the legal and ethical background for the position statement and discusses these issues that informed the development of the AGS positions: (1) age as a determining factor, (2) age as a tiebreaker, (3) criteria with a differential impact on older adults, (4) individual choices and advance directives, (5) racial/ethnic disparities and resource allocation, and (6) scoring systems and their impact on older adults. It also considers the role of advance directives as expressions of individual preferences in pandemics. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1143–1149, 2020.     

Validating administratively derived frailty scores for use in Veterans Health Administration emergency departments

Objectives

Frailty is a clinical syndrome characterized by decreased physiologic reserve that diminishes the ability to respond to stressors such as acute illness. Veterans Health Administration (VA) emergency departments (ED) are the primary venue of care for Veterans with acute illness and represent key sites for frailty recognition. As questionnaire-based frailty instruments can be cumbersome to implement in the ED, we examined two administratively derived frailty scores for use among VA ED patients.

Methods

This national retrospective cohort study included all VA ED visits (2017–2020). We evaluated two administratively derived scores: the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score and the VA Frailty Index (VA-FI). We categorized all ED visits across four frailty groups and examined associations with outcomes of 30-day and 90-day hospitalization and 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality. We used logistic regression to assess the model performance of the CAN score and the VA-FI.

Results

The cohort included 9,213,571 ED visits. With the CAN score, 28.7% of the cohort were classified as severely frail; by VA-FI, 13.2% were severely frail. All outcome rates increased with progressive frailty (p-values for all comparisons < 0.001). For example, for 1-year mortality based on the CAN score frailty was determined as: robust, 1.4%; prefrail, 3.4%; moderately frail, 7.0%; and severely frail, 20.2%. Similarly, for 90-day hospitalization based on VA-FI, frailty was determined as prefrail, 8.3%; mildly frail, 15.3%; moderately frail, 29.5%; and severely frail, 55.4%. The c-statistics for CAN score models were higher than for VA-FI models across all outcomes (e.g., 1-year mortality, 0.721 vs. 0.659).

Conclusions

Frailty was common among VA ED patients. Increased frailty, whether measured by CAN score or VA-FI, was strongly associated with hospitalization and mortality and both can be used in the ED to identify Veterans at high risk for adverse outcomes. Having an effective automatic score in VA EDs to identify frail Veterans may allow for better targeting of scarce resources.     

Medical students' experience of vaginal examinations of anaesthetised women

Medical students usually initially learn vaginal examination (VE) by examining consenting anaesthetised women. To assess their experience of this practice, a questionnaire was distributed to all 66 fifth-year students at the Wellington School of Medicine in 2005—53 students responded. Although 184 women were available to approach for consent, only 141 were approached—students claimed insufficient time as their major difficulty. All male students discussed consent with women only in the 2 hours preoperatively, whereas nine (28%) of the female students sought consent earlier on the day or the day before. Of the 114 women asked, 97 gave written consent, but the VE was conducted in only 76 women mostly because the supervising gynaecologist claimed time constraints or was uninterested. Four other women were examined when consent was uncertain and two without consent. All but one of the students considered the experience educationally valuable. Eleven responding students did not perform a VE, and if the 13 nonresponders also did not, more than one-third of students lack this educational opportunity prior to their final year. In conclusion, some students require more commitment to seeking consent, and some gynaecologists may need to better facilitate this learning opportunity so that the consent agreed with the woman and student is more often respected.