Rationing, Racism, and Justice: Advancing the Debate Around \u27Colourblind\u27 COVID-19 Ventilator Allocation

Withholding or withdrawing life-saving ventilators can become necessary when resources are insufficient. In the USA, such rationing has unique social justice dimensions. Structural elements of dominant allocation frameworks simultaneously advantage white communities, and disadvantage Black communities—who already experience a disproportionate burden of COVID-19-related job losses, hospitalisations and mortality. Using the example of New Jersey’s Crisis Standard of Care policy, we describe how dominant rationing guidance compounds for many Black patients prior unfair structural disadvantage, chiefly due to the way creatinine and life expectancy are typically considered. We outline six possible policy options towards a more just approach: improving diversity in decision processes, adjusting creatinine scores, replacing creatinine, dropping creatinine, finding alternative measures, adding equity weights and rejecting the dominant model altogether. We also contrast these options with making no changes, which is not a neutral default, but in separate need of justification, despite a prominent claim that it is simply based on ‘objective medical knowledge’. In the regrettable absence of fair federal guidance, hospital and state-level policymakers should reflect on which of these, or further options, seem feasible and justifiable. Irrespective of which approach is taken, all guidance should be supplemented with a monitoring and reporting requirement on possible disparate impacts. The hope that we will be able to continue to avoid rationing ventilators must not stand in the way of revising guidance in a way that better promotes health equity and racial justice, both to be prepared, and given the significant expressive value of ventilator guidance

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Ventilator Rationing and Evolving Triage Guidance: New Evidence Underlines the Need to Recognise and Revise, Unjust Allocation Frameworks

We respond to recent comments on our proposal to improve justice in ventilator triage, in which we used as an example New Jersey’s (NJ) publicly available and legally binding Directive Number 2020-03. We agree with Bernard Lo and Doug White that equity implications of triage frameworks should be continually reassessed, which is why we offered six concrete options for improvement, and called for monitoring the consequences of adopted triage models. We disagree with their assessment that we mis-characterised their Model Guidance, as included in the NJ Directive, in ways that undermine our conclusions. They suggest we erroneously described their model as a two-criterion allocation framework; that recognising other operant criterion reveals it ‘likely mitigate[s] rather than exacerbate[s] racial disparities during triage’, and allege that concerns about inequitable outcomes are ‘without evidence’. We highlight two major studies robustly demonstrating why concerns about disparate outcomes are justified. We also show that White and Lo seek to retrospectively—and counterfactually—correct the version of the Model Guideline included in the NJ Directive. However, as our facsimile reproductions show, neither the alleged four-criteria form, nor other key changes, such as dropping the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, are found in the Directive. These points matter because (1) our conclusions hence stand, (2) because the public version of the Model Guidance had not been updated to reduce the risk of inequitable outcomes until June 2021 and (3) NJ’s Directive still does not reflect these revisions, and, hence, represents a less equitable version, as acknowledged by its authors. We comment on broader policy implications and call for ways of ensuring accurate, transparent and timely updates for users of high-stakes guidelines

Opioids for chronic pain management in patients with dialysis-dependent kidney failure

Chronic pain is highly prevalent among adults treated with maintenance haemodialysis (HD) and has profound negative effects. Over four decades, research has demonstrated that 50-80% of adult patients treated with HD report having pain. Half of patients with HD-dependent kidney failure (HDKF) have chronic moderate-to-severe pain, which is similar to the burden of pain in patients with cancer. However, pain management in patients with HDKF is often ineffective as most patients report that their pain is inadequately treated. Opioid analgesics are prescribed more frequently for patients receiving HD than for individuals in the general population with chronic pain, and are associated with increased morbidity, mortality and health-care resource use. Furthermore, current opioid prescribing patterns are frequently inconsistent with guideline-recommended care. Evidence for the effectiveness of opioids in pain management in general, and in patients with HDKF specifically, is lacking. Nonetheless, long-term opioid therapy has a role in the treatment of some patients when used selectively, carefully and combined with an ongoing assessment of risks and benefits. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the use of opioid therapy in patients with HDKF and chronic pain, including a discussion of buprenorphine, which has potential as an analgesic option for patients receiving HD owing to its unique pharmacological properties

Stakeholder-Driven Intervention Development for Dialysis Trials Using a Design Sprint Methodology

Rationale & Objective: Stigma contributes to ineffective treatment for pain among individuals with kidney failure on dialysis, particularly with buprenorphine pain treatment. To address stigma, we adapted a Design Sprint, an industry-developed structured exercise where an interdisciplinary group works over 5 days to clarify the problem, identify and choose a solution, and build and test a prototype. Study Design: Adapted Design Sprint which clarified the problem to be solved, proposed solutions, and created a blueprint for the selected solution. Settings & Participants: Five individuals with pain and kidney disease receiving dialysis, 5 physicians (nephrology, palliative care, and addiction medicine) and 4 large dialysis organization leaders recruited for specific expertise or experience. Conducted through online platform (Zoom) and virtual white board (Miro board). Analytical Approach: Descriptions of the Design Sprint adaptations and processes. Results: To facilitate patient comfort, a patient-only phase included four 90-minute sessions over 2-weeks, during which patient participants used a mapping process to define the critical problem and sketch out solutions. In a physician-only phase, consisting of two 120-minute sessions, participants accomplished the same tasks. During a combined phase of two 120-minute sessions, patients, physicians, and large dialysis organization representatives vetted and developed solutions from earlier phases, leading to an intervention blueprint. Videoconferencing technology allowed for geographically diverse representation and facilitated participation from patients experiencing medical illness. The electronic whiteboard permitted interactive written contributions and voting on priorities instead of only verbal discussion, which may privilege physician participants. A skilled qualitative researcher facilitated the sessions. Limitations: Challenges included the time commitment of the sessions, absences owing to illness or emergencies, and technical difficulties. Conclusions: An adapted Design Sprint is a novel method of efficiently and rapidly incorporating multiple stakeholders to develop solutions for clinical challenges in kidney disease. Plain Language Summary: Stigma contributes to ineffective treatment for pain among individuals with kidney failure on dialysis, particularly when using buprenorphine, an opioid pain medicine with a lower risk of sedation used to treat addiction. To develop a stigma intervention, we adapted a Design Sprint, an industry-developed structured exercise where an interdisciplinary group works over 5 days to clarify the problem, identify and choose a solution, and build and test a prototype. We conducted 3 sprints with (1) patients alone, (2) physicians alone, and (3) combined patients, physicians, and dialysis organization representatives. This paper describes the adaptations and products of sprints as a method for gathering diverse stakeholder voices to create an intervention blueprint efficiently and rapidly

Longitudinal patterns of health-related quality of life and dialysis modality: a national cohort study

Abstract Background Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) varies among dialysis patients. However, little is known about the association of dialysis modality with HrQoL over time. We describe longitudinal patterns of HrQoL among chronic dialysis patients by treatment modality. Methods National retrospective cohort study of adult patients who initiated in-center dialysis or a home modality (peritoneal or home hemodialysis) between 1/2013 and 6/2015. Patients remained on the same modality for the first 120 days of the first two years. HrQoL was assessed by the Kidney Disease and Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL) survey in the first 120 days of the first two years after dialysis initiation. Home modality patients were matched to in-center patients in a 1:5 fashion. Results In-center (n=4234) and home modality (n=880) patients had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. In-center dialysis patients had lower mean KDQOL scores across several domains compared to home modality patients. For patients who remained on the same modality, there was no change in HrQoL. However, there were trends towards clinically meaningful changes in several aspects of HrQoL for patients who switched modalities. Specifically, physical functioning decreased for patients who switched from home to in-center dialysis (p< 0.05). Conclusions Among a national cohort of chronic dialysis patients, there was a trend towards different patterns of HrQoL life that were only observed among patients who changed modality. Patients who switched from home to in-center modalities had significant lower physical functioning over time. Providers and patients should be mindful of HrQoL changes that may occur with dialysis modality change