Abstract
At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, mounting demand overwhelmed critical care surge capacities, triggering implementation of triage protocols to determine ventilator allocation. Relying on triage scores to ration care, while relieving clinicians from making morally distressing decisions under high situational pressure, distracts clinicians from what is essentially deeply humanistic issues entrenched in this protracted public health crisis. Such an approach will become increasingly untenable as countries flatten their epidemic curves. Decisions regarding intensive care unit admission are particularly challenging in older people, who are most likely to require critical care, but for whom benefits are most uncertain. Before applying score-based triage, physicians must first discern if older people will benefit from critical care (beneficence) and second, if he wants critical care (autonomy). When deliberating beneficence, physicians should steer away from solely using age-stratified survival probabilities from epidemiological data. Instead, decisions must be based on individualised risk-stratification that encompasses evidence-based predictors of adverse outcomes specific to older adults. Survival will also need to be weighed against burden of treatment, as well as longer term functional deficits and quality-of-life. By identifying the robust older people who may benefit from critical care, clinicians should proceed to elicit his values and preferences that would determine the treatment most aligned with his best interest. During these dialogues, physicians must truthfully convey the emergent clinical reality, discern the older person’s therapeutic goals and discuss the feasibility of achieving them. Given that COVID-19 is here to stay, these conversations aimed at achieving goal-cordant care must become a new clinical norm.
Effect of Competing Attentional Demands on Perturbation-Evoked Stepping Reactions and Associated Gaze Behavior in Young and Older Adults
