Skip to main content
Duke University Libraries
DukeSpace Scholarship by Duke Authors
  • Login
  • Ask
  • Menu
  • Login
  • Ask a Librarian
  • Search & Find
  • Using the Library
  • Research Support
  • Course Support
  • Libraries
  • About
View Item 
  •   DukeSpace
  • Duke Scholarly Works
  • Scholarly Articles
  • View Item
  •   DukeSpace
  • Duke Scholarly Works
  • Scholarly Articles
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Which factors should be included in triage? An online survey of the attitudes of the UK general public to pandemic triage dilemmas.

Thumbnail
View / Download
1.2 Mb
Date
2020-12-08
Authors
Wilkinson, Dominic
Zohny, Hazem
Kappes, Andreas
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter
Savulescu, Julian
Repository Usage Stats
43
views
4
downloads
Abstract
<h4>Objective</h4>As cases of COVID-19 infections surge, concerns have renewed about intensive care units (ICUs) being overwhelmed and the need for specific triage protocols over winter. This study aimed to help inform triage guidance by exploring the views of lay people about factors to include in triage decisions.<h4>Design, setting and participants</h4>Online survey between 29th of May and 22nd of 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.<h4>Results</h4>Seven hundred and sixty-three participated. A majority of respondents prioritised 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<0.001). 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.<h4>Conclusion</h4>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.
Type
Journal article
Subject
Humans
Attitude to Health
Health Care Rationing
Adult
Middle Aged
Intensive Care Units
Triage
Female
Male
Pandemics
Surveys and Questionnaires
United Kingdom
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/21951
Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045593
Publication Info
Wilkinson, Dominic; Zohny, Hazem; Kappes, Andreas; Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter; & Savulescu, Julian (2020). Which factors should be included in triage? An online survey of the attitudes of the UK general public to pandemic triage dilemmas. BMJ open, 10(12). pp. e045593. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045593. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/21951.
This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
  • Scholarly Articles
More Info
Show full item record

Scholars@Duke

Sinnott-Armstrong

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Chauncey Stillman Distinguished Professor of Practical Ethics
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong is Chauncey Stillman Professor of Practical Ethics in the Department of Philosophy and the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. He has secondary appointments in the Law School and the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, and he is core faculty in the Duke Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, the <a href
Open Access

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy

Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles


Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info

Make Your Work Available Here

How to Deposit

Browse

All of DukeSpaceCommunities & CollectionsAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
Duke University Libraries

Contact Us

411 Chapel Drive
Durham, NC 27708
(919) 660-5870
Perkins Library Service Desk

Digital Repositories at Duke

  • Report a problem with the repositories
  • About digital repositories at Duke
  • Accessibility Policy
  • Deaccession and DMCA Takedown Policy

TwitterFacebookYouTubeFlickrInstagramBlogs

Sign Up for Our Newsletter
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Support the Libraries
Duke University