Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35289860›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Assessment of a Crisis Standards of Care Scoring System for Resource Prioritization and Estimated Excess Mortality by Race, Ethnicity, and Socially Vulnerable Area During a Regional Surge in COVID-19.

Elisabeth D Riviello, Tenzin Dechen, Ashley L O'Donoghue, Michael N Cocchi, Margaret M Hayes, Rose L Molina, Nicole H Moraco, Anne Mosenthal, Michael Rosenblatt, Noa Talmor and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Fair admission risk prediction with proportional multicalibration.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Elisabeth D RivielloDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tenzin DechenCenter for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ashley L O'DonoghueHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael N CocchiHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Margaret M HayesDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rose L MolinaHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nicole H MoracoDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Anne MosenthalDivision of Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts.
Michael RosenblattDivision of Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts.
Noa TalmorCenter for Healthcare Delivery Science, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Daniel P WalshHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
David N SontagHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jennifer P StevensDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USHarvard University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Hospital · USLahey Hospital and Medical Center · USTufts University · US

Funding

A multistakeholder examination of the drivers and value of inpatient consultationK08HS024288 · AHRQ · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI STEVENS, JENNIFER P · 2016 to 2020
$752k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS024288
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Crisis standards of care (CSOC) scores designed to allocate scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic could exacerbate racial disparities in health care. Objective: To analyze the association of a CSOC scoring system with resource prioritization and estimated excess mortality by race, ethnicity, and residence in a socially vulnerable area. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included adult patients in the intensive care unit during a regional COVID-19 surge from April 13 to May 22, 2020, at 6 hospitals in a health care network in greater Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were scored by acute severity of illness using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and chronic severity of illness using comorbidity and life expectancy scores, and only participants with complete scores were included. The score was ordinal, with cutoff points suggested by the Massachusetts guidelines. Exposures: Race, ethnicity, Social Vulnerability Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion of patients in the lowest priority score category stratified by self-reported race. Secondary outcomes were discrimination and calibration of the score overall and by race, ethnicity, and neighborhood Social Vulnerability Index. Projected excess deaths were modeled by race, using the priority scoring system and a random lottery. Results: Of 608 patients in the intensive care unit during the study period, 498 had complete data and were included in the analysis; this population had a median (IQR) age of 67 (56-75) years, 191 (38.4%) female participants, 79 (15.9%) Black participants, and 225 patients (45.7%) with COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the priority score was 0.79 and was similar across racial groups. Black patients were more likely than others to be in the lowest priority group (12 [15.2%] vs 34 [8.1%]; P = .046). In an exploratory simulation model using the score for ventilator allocation, with only those in the highest priority group receiving ventilators, there were 43.9% excess deaths among Black patients (18 of 41 patients) and 28.6% (58 of 203 patients among all others (P = .05); when the highest and intermediate priority groups received ventilators, there were 4.9% (2 of 41 patients) excess deaths among Black patients and 3.0% (6 of 203) among all others (P = .53). A random lottery resulted in more excess deaths than the score. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a CSOC priority score resulted in lower prioritization of Black patients to receive scarce resources. A model using a random lottery resulted in more estimated excess deaths overall without improving equity by race. CSOC policies must be evaluated for their potential association with racial disparities in health care.

Indexed as

Standard of CareAgedBostonCOVID-19Critical CareEthnicityFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Care RationingHealth PrioritiesHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Dysfunction ScoresRacial Groups

Identifiers

PMID35289860
PMCPMC8924715
OpenAlexW4220985807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.