ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Association between critical care occupancy and code status decisions during resource scarcity: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCode status determination typically relies on the expected benefits and harms of treatment intensification and patient values and preferences. Resource availability may also influence code status decisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for critical care often exceeded the available resources. This study investigated the association between critical care occupancy and code status decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized at Geneva University Hospital for acute COVID-19-related illness during two successive pandemic waves, in spring and autumn 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between critical care occupancy at admission and code status attribution while accounting for clinical and demographic characteristics, including age, sex, ROX index (pulse oximetry/fraction of inspired oxygen/respiratory rate), comorbidities, malignancy, nationality, insurance, and socioeconomic status.
resultsA total of 2,122 patients were included in the analysis. Higher critical care occupancy was associated with an increased likelihood of being assigned an intensive care unit (ICU)-ineligible code status. The odds ratios (ORs) were 1.61 (95% CI 1.11-2.32), 1.59 (1.11-2.28) and 1.71 (1.06-2.76) for critical care occupancy levels of 100-119%, 120-139% and ≥ 140%, respectively, compared with the prepandemic baseline capacity. Other factors significantly associated with the assignment of an ICU-ineligible code status included age 70-79 years (OR 8.56; 95% CI 4.12-17.77), 80-89 years (OR 32.78; 95% CI 16.16-66.50) and ≥90 years (OR 49.04; 95% CI 23.05-104.31) and a higher comorbidity index (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.07-1.39). Conversely, complementary hospitalization insurance was associated with lower odds of being assigned an ICU-ineligible code status (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.29-0.92).
conclusionsOur study revealed a positive association between critical care occupancy and ICU-ineligible code status, suggesting the presence of implicit triaging during periods of high resource strain. This raises several ethical concerns, including the use of non-consensual triage criteria, lack of transparency and the risk of moral distress for healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.