Erratum 1

Raman S, Brown G, Long D, et al; the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Paediatric Study Group (ANZICS PSG). Priorities for paediatric critical care research: a modified Delphi study by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Paediatric Study Group. Crit Care Resusc 2021; 23: 194-201. In this article, on page 200, the Acknowledgements section should read: “We thank Mark Peters, University College London, UK, for sharing his expertise at the Hanlon stage of this exercise. The data team within the Paediatric Critical Care Research Group, Brisbane, Australia helped with the surveys and analyses of the data. We thank Kate Masterson, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, and all staff from PICUs in Australia and New Zealand and the ANZICS PSG Committee who participated in this study. We acknowledge the local research coordinators and research staff, who assisted with study distribution, promotion and the prioritisation process.”

Admission criteria and management of critical care patients in a pandemic context: position of the Ethics Commission of the French Intensive Care Society, update of April 2021

Intensive care unit professionals have experience in critical care and its proportionality, collegial decision-making, withholding or withdrawal of treatment deemed futile, and communication with patients’ relatives. These elements rely on ethical values from which we must not deviate in a pandemic situation. The recommendations made by the Ethics Commission of the French Intensive Care Society reflect an approach of responsibility and solidarity towards our citizens regarding the potential impact of a pandemic on critical care resources in France, with the fundamental requirement of respect for human dignity and equal access to health care for all.

2019 World Congress of Intensive Care: Hosted by the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses, and the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine, 14–18 October 2019, Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Abstracts are published as supplied and have not been subject to editorial review or correction.

CRITCON-Pandemic levels: A stepwise ethical approach to clinician responsibility

CRITCON-Pandemic levels with an associated operational responsibility matrix were recently published by the Intensive Care Society as a modification to Winter Flu CRITCON levels, to better account for differences between a winter flu surge in critical care activity and the capacity challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we propose an expansion and explanation of the operational matrix to suggest a stepwise ethical approach to clinician responsibility. We propose and outline the main ethical risks created at each level and discuss how those risks can be mitigated through a balanced application of the predominant ethical principle which in turn provides practical guidance to clinician responsibility. We thus seek to specify the ethical and legal principles that should be used in applying the operational matrix, and what the practical effects could be.

COVID-19: UK frontline intensivists' emerging learning

The Intensive Care Society held a webinar on 3 April 2020 at which representatives from 11 of the most COVID-19 experienced hospital trusts in England and Wales shared learning around five specific topic areas in an open forum. This paper summarises the emerging learning and practice shared by those frontline clinicians.

CRITCON-Pandemic Levels - a stepwise ethical approach to clinician responsibility.

<p>CRITCON-Pandemic Levels with an associated Operational Responsibility Matrix were recently published by the Intensive Care Society as a modification to Winter Flu CRITCON levels, to better account for differences between a winter flu surge in critical</p><p>care activity and the capacity challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic1. In this paper we propose an expansion and explanation of the Operational Matrix to suggest a stepwise ethical approach to clinician responsibility. We propose and outline the main ethical risks</p><p>created at each level and discuss how those risks can be mitigated through a balanced application of the predominant ethical principle which in turn provides practical guidance to clinician responsibility. We thus seek to specify the ethical and legal principles that should be used in applying the Operational Matrix, and what the practical effects could be.</p>