Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Invited Features
Open Access

Balancing the Needs of Acute and Maintenance Dialysis Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic

A Proposed Ethical Framework for Dialysis Allocation

Rachel C. Carson, Brian Forzley, Sarah Thomas, Nina Preto, Gaylene Hargrove, Alice Virani, John Antonsen, Melanie Brown, Michael Copland, Marie Michaud, Anurag Singh and Adeera Levin
CJASN July 2021, 16 (7) 1122-1130; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.07460520
Rachel C. Carson
1Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian Forzley
1Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Thomas
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nina Preto
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gaylene Hargrove
1Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alice Virani
3Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Antonsen
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melanie Brown
1Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Copland
1Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marie Michaud
1Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anurag Singh
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adeera Levin
1Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
2BC Renal, British Columbia Provincial Health Services Authority, British Columbia, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to strain health care systems and drive shortages in medical supplies and equipment around the world. Resource allocation in times of scarcity requires transparent, ethical frameworks to optimize decision making and reduce health care worker and patient distress. The complexity of allocating dialysis resources for both patients receiving acute and maintenance dialysis has not previously been addressed. Using a rapid, collaborative, and iterative process, BC Renal, a provincial network in Canada, engaged patients, doctors, ethicists, administrators, and nurses to develop a framework for addressing system capacity, communication challenges, and allocation decisions. The guiding ethical principles that underpin this framework are (1) maximizing benefits, (2) treating people fairly, (3) prioritizing the worst-off individuals, and (4) procedural justice. Algorithms to support resource allocation and triage of patients were tested using simulations, and the final framework was reviewed and endorsed by members of the provincial nephrology community. The unique aspects of this allocation framework are the consideration of two diverse patient groups who require dialysis (acute and maintenance), and the application of two allocation criteria (urgency and prognosis) to each group in a sequential matrix. We acknowledge the context of the Canadian health care system, and a universal payer in which this framework was developed. The intention is to promote fair decision making and to maintain an equitable reallocation of limited resources for a complex problem during a pandemic.

  • COVID-19
  • chronic disease
  • renal replacement therapy
  • acute care
  • ethics
  • acute kidney injury
  • triage

Introduction

In managing the COVID-19 pandemic, programs around the world are faced with several challenges, including critical shortages of supplies, equipment, and personnel. If demand for health care services exceeds capacity, priority shifts from the individual toward the public common good (1,2). Triage decisions raise multiple ethical dilemmas, including balancing the needs of acute and maintenance patients who require dialysis, both inside and outside hospital settings. Past experience with dialysis resource allocation provides a powerful illustration of the ethical dilemmas that a shortage presents (3,4), and brings into focus the importance of adopting an ethical, transparent decision-making process (5 ⇓ ⇓–8).

The current pandemic highlights these issues, with many patients with COVID-19 developing AKI requiring dialysis, including up to 20%–30% of patients with COVID-19 who are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (9). Media reports (10,11), a recent publication (12), and an International Society of Nephrology statement (13) describe the importance of planning for dialysis care during COVID-19 surges. To the best of our knowledge, a principle-driven framework considering multiple distinct patient groups has not been previously published.

Unlike ventilation decisions, dialysis is offered for a wider range of indications, with different prognostic implications if temporarily withheld, and with some flexibility in time horizons. Maintenance dialysis resource use is predominantly in the outpatient setting, either facility- or nonfacility-based. It is inappropriate and impractical to use existing critical care triage criteria (14 ⇓–16) when considering allocation of resources to outpatients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Thus, we propose that dialysis resource allocation must compare and triage two diverse patient groups who require dialysis (both acute and maintenance, inpatients and outpatients). This shared common resource pool of dialysis equipment and staff must be distributed fairly and ethically, especially in settings where outpatient dialysis facilities are located within hospitals. The approach must address the complexities arising from the heterogeneous clinical status and prognosis of these patient populations.

Anticipating strain on the health system because of COVID-19, BC Renal, a provincial network responsible for planning and resourcing kidney care in British Columba, Canada, created a transparent framework for allocating dialysis resources during the pandemic, founded in ethical principles. The Canadian health care system provides maintenance dialysis for outpatients predominantly within hospital settings, as well as promoting smaller satellite units and home-based therapies. The reliance on facility-based staff and machines to provide both outpatient maintenance dialysis and acute in-hospital dialysis is one of the drivers of this framework. This situation may not exist in all jurisdictions, but does in many. The framework promotes fair decision making and maintains an equitable allocation of resources while preparing for a potential surge in the number of patients requiring acute hemodialysis. Although the principles outlined in this document are broadly applicable, implementation will vary depending on the local health care context and the available resources.

Materials and Methods

The authors defined the scope of the framework, including addressing surge capacity, allocation decisions if demand outstrips capacity, relevant ethical principles, and optimal communication with patients and health care providers. We engaged a multidisciplinary stakeholder group to capture a diversity of perspectives and input at the time of initial proposals and writing. We included doctors, ethicists, administrators, nurses, and patients from different geography and health journeys. We have further included a larger stakeholder group with overt representation from underserviced and disadvantaged populations to continue the work reported here. A research librarian conducted a focused literature search, leveraging our provincial clinical network to identify other relevant information sources. We then consulted with several other nephrology programs outside of British Columbia and Canada and tested the proposed algorithm using a simulation of a variety of patient presentations in a resource limited unit (Supplemental Material, Dialysis Allocation Framework Algorithm Simulation spreadsheet). The final framework was reviewed and endorsed by all stakeholders. This framework was created in the context of a high-income country, with universal health care access for all patients in Canada, where dialysis is provided through government institutions, including both facility and home-based therapies, predominantly under the jurisdiction of single hospitals or health authorities. The framework does not presume that need for dialysis acutely is solely driven by those infected by COVID-19, and thus can be applied to all circumstances where demand for services outstrips supply.

Key Actions Required for Patient-Centered Management of Resources during a Pandemic

The stakeholder group identified the following key actions as essential for successful ethical resource management:

  • (1) Ensure that a system and structure is in place for execution of the emergency plan, established in advance.

  • (2) Ensure the ability to assess system capacity for acute and maintenance dialysis exists, ideally using electronic tools.

  • (3) Ensure good communication to patients, families, and health care providers about potential changes and the supporting rationale.

  • (4) Increase dialysis capacity with existing human and dialysis machine resources by assessing the suitability of patients on maintenance hemodialysis for alteration of hemodialysis schedules, diet, and other medication changes, and by developing contingencies for alternative dialysis modalities for both inpatients and outpatients (such as continuous KRT, peritoneal dialysis).

  • (5) Enable the implementation of a Dialysis Triage Algorithm that includes the needs of patients on acute and maintenance dialysis.

Tools and measures to support these activities are described below.

Assessing and Expanding Capacity in Hemodialysis Units

Knowledge of total local capacity and the ability to respond to a surge in need for dialysis services is essential (17). Centralized information about the number of dialysis machines, portable reverse osmosis systems, plumbing and water requirements, and nursing and technical support personnel must be accessible to the leadership team. Emergency health plans should account for best and worst case scenarios modeled on the best-available data. Data from regions already affected by an outbreak can be used to inform emergency planning, while accounting for differences in circumstances. In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the possibility of a second, more severe wave of infection (18) should encourage nephrology leadership teams to engage in this capacity assessment and planning exercise as early as possible, and routinely.

Table 1 describes transparent eligibility criteria for hemodialysis dose reduction in patients receiving maintenance dialysis. These categories were developed by the BC Renal Hemodialysis Committee, a multidisciplinary group of clinicians across the province of British Columbia. There are five categories on the basis of patient characteristics, as assessed by a clinical team. Coupled with education about diet and emergency medication supplies (diuretics and potassium binders), these strategies may enable safe temporary reduction in maintenance dialysis dose for specific individuals. Individually assessing patients who are on long-time dialysis for the ability to have hemodialysis at a safely reduced frequency and/or duration permits a rapid and flexible increase in system capacity to deliver dialysis services without additional machines or nurses. This approach is intended to be applied in advance of when resource reallocation is needed.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Categories of eligibility for dialysis dose reduction in patients on maintenance dialysis

Timely and Clear Communication to Patients and Health Care Providers

Patient partners and health care providers strongly endorsed the need for clear communication throughout the pandemic, ideally before implemented changes. Open and clear discussion about what might happen, why, and the implications for patients and families is critical. Preprepared documents outlining key concepts in accessible, jargon-free language can help support patients and care providers in discussing questions and concerns, and further enhance open and transparent planning processes. Feedback suggested that preparatory discussions foster additional opportunities to articulate patient goals, highlight patient-specific considerations and wishes, and identify resources to help meet the patient’s goals of care (19,20). During pandemic situations, with focus on short-term capacity and those affected by the virus, patients on maintenance dialysis and their families must not feel abandoned by their health care teams. Our patient partners articulated that clear and honest communication is critical to reduce fear that patients may experience, and create an atmosphere of mutual trust and solidarity. The BC Renal website (www.bcrenalagency.ca) contains communication tools developed in three languages, which were widely distributed to support patients and health care workers. One document describes the rationale and possible changes affecting the dialysis unit functioning and schedules, and the other describes the importance of advance care planning. The documents underscore that changes are in accordance with provincial guidance documents, and reassure patients and families that they will not be abandoned.

Planning for Acute Dialysis Resources

The recommended KRT for patients with COVID-19 who are in critical care areas is continuous KRT, because it limits the number of staff who must enter COVID-19 care areas and reduces movement of equipment and supplies (17). Emerging experience indicates acute peritoneal dialysis is both feasible and effective for ventilated patients (21), and has been recommended for AKI to increase program capacity. Further, not all patients requiring acute dialysis have COVID-19, nor are they all in ICU settings. Thus, all modalities can be used.

A surge in the need for intermittent hemodialysis in acute-care inpatient settings may directly affect capacity and require reallocation of dialysis resources from patients on maintenance dialysis to those requiring acute dialysis. Where staff and machine resources are housed in one location (hospital based), staffing rather than machine supply may be the greater determinant if staff exposed to COVID-19 must self-isolate or take stress leave. Capacity expansion will also depend on facility infrastructure, such as water treatment availability in spaces that are being repurposed because of the pandemic.

If facility-based maintenance dialysis capacity has been maximized, but dialysis needs exceed capacity, triage is the option of last resort. The overarching purpose of a triage system is to minimize mortality and morbidity for a population overall, as opposed to individual mortality and morbidity risk (22).

Ethical Framework, Triage, and the Fair Allocation of Dialysis Resources

The working group applied key ethical principles from other resource allocation frameworks during the COVID-19 pandemic and other crisis situations. The guiding ethical principles that underpin this framework are (1) maximizing benefits, (2) treating people fairly, (3) prioritizing the worst-off individuals, and (4) procedural justice (2,23) (Table 2). The last principle focuses on fairness of process, and the first three principles aim to guide prioritization within the framework. Priority is given to those patients who have the strongest immediate need for KRT and are otherwise expected to have the greatest chance of surviving, independent of whether their KRT needs are short versus long term.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Ethical principles

The framework specifies that allocation decisions must not further perpetuate inequities by further disadvantaging marginalized populations. Decision makers must actively guard against relying on ethically indefensible criteria (age, race, ethnicity, ability to pay, disability) or subjective quality-of-life assessments in allocation and triage decisions. When patients are similar with respect to objective prognostic features, age group may be considered in the decision-making process, and we share the view that use of age-related “life cycle” as a tie-breaker is ethically justifiable (the so-called “fair innings” approach) (1,14,16,24⇓⇓–27).

Finally, in keeping with the dominant view in Western bioethics (28,29), this framework does not make an ethical distinction between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. However, withdrawal can be more challenging psychologically, particularly for maintenance hemodialysis as an established course of treatment (30).

The Complex Challenge of Allocating Dialysis Services

The complexity of the multiple settings (inpatient and outpatient) and patient populations (acute and maintenance dialysis) involved in allocating dialysis resources forces decision makers to consider multiple dimensions. Triage must carefully balance consideration of immediate, near, and long-term effects of decisions. The working group identified two distinct allocation concepts (urgency and prognosis) to be applied in a sequential matrix to two distinct populations: patients on acute and maintenance hemodialysis. This creates a heat map of four triage categories according to accepted triage methodology: red (immediate), yellow (urgent), green (delayed), and blue (expectant) (22).

Allocation Concept 1: Urgency of Need.

Inpatients (those needing acute dialysis and hospitalized patients on maintenance dialysis) are categorized on the basis of three categories of urgency of need for dialysis that day (emergent versus urgent versus can be safely deferred that day). Outpatients on maintenance dialysis are categorized on the basis of two categories of urgency of need for dialysis that day (about to decompensate/high risk of predictable harm versus can be safely deferred that day). We do not differentiate those with or without COVID-19, only the need for dialysis services. We acknowledge that urgency may be subjective, and if necessary, triage teams could further develop more discrete criteria.

Allocation Concept 2: Prognosis.

Patients are categorized on the basis of ethical principles of utility, efficiency, and equity, whereby those with the greatest need and greatest likelihood of benefit are prioritized. Table 3 is a prognosis-based scoring table for the acute inpatient population, adapted from White et al. (14,16). It estimates acute prognosis using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and relative longer-term prognosis using the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). A recent systematic review (31) identified the CCI as the most commonly used prognostic tool in the incident maintenance dialysis population, and it has been well validated for kidney patients (32). Our framework follows an approach adopted by others (33), and purposefully does not rely completely on longer-term (e.g., 10 year) life expectancy to avoid further disadvantaging those with lower long-term life expectancy from factors such as diseases exacerbated by social inequalities.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Proposed prognostic prioritization score

Figure 1 shows how this two-step approach permits ethically informed dialysis allocation. The algorithm is intended to support facilities that function as a unit making KRT decisions, including care in hospitals and, potentially, outpatient dialysis units, if feasible. The algorithm applies to all patients with an indication for KRT, including acute and maintenance dialysis. Allocation concept 1 (urgency) is initially applied to identify and triage all patients for whom dialysis can be safely deferred that day (including clinical effect of previous deferrals) to the green group. Patients who have the worst prognosis are triaged to the blue group. A matrix of urgency and prognosis is then applied to the remaining patients to triage them to either the red or the yellow group (34). Patients in the red group have top-priority access to dialysis, and patients in the yellow group receive dialysis if capacity permits. Patients are retriaged on a daily basis, and may receive priority one day and not the following day according to their clinical parameters and score. This includes intermittent hemodialysis and continuous KRT. Within either color group, if the number of patients exceeds capacity, then the patients are ranked by their score and prioritized accordingly. Patients with identical scores are reallocated by age range, according to their life cycle and the fair innings principle. Any final tie breaking proceeds by random allocation (lottery). Developing a weighted lottery system that considers, for example, socioeconomic deprivation status, may be helpful in further delineating fairest allocation (35,36). To limit the possibility that anyone will be denied resources unnecessarily, dialysis capacity and the need for triage should be assessed on an ongoing basis to support timely de-escalation. Transparent and clear communication is essential to address potential provider and patient distress when withholding dialysis.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Algorithm for dialysis allocation. HD, hemodialysis; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.

The Role of Triage Teams

Surge level declarations are typically determined by public health officials and supported by extensive consultation. Table 4 describes surge levels and recommended responses. Region-specific demographics and legislative requirements must be considered in the implementation of any prioritization plan. Triage teams, not involved in direct patient care, ensure the fiduciary relationship between physician and patient is maintained, promote consistent and objective decisions, and relieve the burden of decision making from providers who may feel distressed by allocation decisions during a crisis (37). The exact composition of the dialysis triage team should be determined locally, and may involve an administrator, a nephrologist, an ethicist, and an allied health care professional. Once emergency triage status (stage 4 in Table 4) has been declared, these local triage teams are responsible for the allocation of available dialysis services within their respective jurisdictions. A larger regional triage team may be helpful to provide guidance and oversight to the local teams, ensure regional coordination of resources, and act as an executive decision-making body in case of appeals. Predetermining these teams, roles, and responsibilities is important to do before emergency situations. Communication between critical care and nephrology teams is important to ensure concordant planning of life support therapies.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Surge levels and recommended responses

Strengths and Weaknesses

This evidence-informed framework aims to create a fair accountable process. It was created with and vetted by multiple stakeholders, uses established scores to estimate prognosis, and accounts for multiple dimensions of decision making (prognosis, urgency, and mixed patient populations). The inclusion of patient partners, administrators, ethicists, nephrologists, and nurses is a strength. Work with a more diverse group of patient partners is required and is already underway.

We have used the CCI in our simulation, but recognize that it fails to identify patients with anticipated lower survival rates owing to frailty and could assign priority inappropriately. We considered adding the Clinical Frailty Scale to address this, but did not to avoid additional complexity and concerns around the effects on vulnerable populations (15,38). There is significant clinician workload associated with calculating CCI and SOFA scores to apply the algorithm to large dialysis programs and hospitals. We acknowledge that SOFA has limits for prognostication, but note its adoption in most ventilator triaging protocols in the United States (39) and reasonable discrimination among patients with AKI (40⇓⇓⇓⇓–45). Our vetting process identified the importance of objective measures of prognosis; thus, we opted to use the CCI as an amendment to the strategy by White et al. (16). Overemphasizing comorbidities and long term prognosis (e.g., 10-year time frame) risks deprioritizing patients already disadvantaged on the basis of socioeconomic and racial status. However, the systematic review (31) of CCI use in kidney disease largely studied a time frame of 6 months to 5 years, which was our intended prognostic time horizon.

The overall feasibility of our approach depends on the health care environment and would be best supported in centers caring for inpatients and outpatients as a unit. However, it could be adapted to separate hospital and outpatient dialysis clinics that can function as a unit. Ideally, access to electronic tools to facilitate calculations would further aid in the application of the algorithms both for improving capacity and for triage. This protocol requires a significant amount of data collection and local site organization and communication, but we anticipate much of the data and scores will be concordant with routine care and ventilator triaging protocols and will improve patient outcomes and moral distress during a time of crisis.

Limitations

The suggestions and recommendations in this paper are from a Canadian context, on the basis of BC Renal stakeholder opinion, and thus potentially subject to bias. However, we have attempted to mitigate this through extensive vetting both within and outside the kidney community. Because of the emerging and rapidly evolving situation of the COVID-19 outbreak, consultation for this work was done in a relatively short time period, between March and May 2020. Although we did not previously formally engage stakeholders from communities of people of color, Indigenous people, those with disabilities, and rural populations to provide their perspectives, we have subsequently embarked on a process to engage those groups.

Conclusions

We have highlighted the complexities specific to dialysis provision during a pandemic, arising from wider ranging indications and degrees of urgency, unique prognostic considerations, and management of two distinct patient populations requiring the same resources. It is imperative that health care leaders identify and implement clear frameworks in advance of crisis conditions to ensure ethical decision making and ease moral distress. These recommendations are intended to provide the best care possible during a time of altered priorities and reduced resources.

We highlight the importance of clear communication before and during emergency situations. To the extent that this approach fosters trust and confidence, it helps to promote acceptance even in the face of continued disagreement and uncertainty. This trust and confidence may help mitigate the suffering and distress of patients and families, as well as health care providers (46,47). This framework is intended to form a critical component of a broader, comprehensive pandemic dialysis response plan to help enable optimal outcomes as we navigate public health crises now and in the future.

Disclosures

M. Copland reports consultancy agreements with NxStage Medical; receiving honoraria from NxStage Medical, Sanofi, and Takeda; serving as a scientific advisor or member of NxStage Medical; and serving on the speakers bureau of NxStage Medical. G. Hargrove reports receiving honoraria from Celgene and Otsuka; and other interests/relationships with Kidney Foundation of Canada. A. Levin reports employment with BC Provincial Renal Agency; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Johnson and Johnson/Jansen, and Reata; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Kidney Foundation of Canada, Merck, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Ortho Biotech, Otsuka, and Oxford Clinical Trials; and serving as a scientific advisor or member of AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, Certa, Johnson and Johnson, Kidney Foundation of Canada, Otsuka, and Reata. N. Preto reports employment with Provincial Health Services Authority (BC Canada) and serving as a member of the Review and Oversight (RERO) Technical Committee of the Human Research Standards Organization. A. Singh reports serving as a member of Kidney Foundation of Canada. S. Thomas reports employment with BC Renal. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

None.

Acknowledgments

Members of the BC Renal Dialysis Allocation Working group are Teresa Atkinson, Dennis McCann, Paula Hann, Sukhvinder Bhatia, Sherri L. Kensall, Zoila Magbag, Janice Rotinsky, Bernadine Wong-Mercado, and Dr. Claire Harris. Michelle Hampson assisted with writing and editing. Research librarian Nicole Weitzel provided literature search support and Jason Curran assisted with the references. Stacey Richardson provided graphics support. The authors acknowledge Dr. Michael Bevilacqua, Dr. Joslyn Conley, Dr. Alison Croome, Dr. Naomi Glick, Dr. Mercedeh Kiaii, Dr. Morgan Lam, Iqwinder Mangat, Dr. Andrew McLaren, Lois Neufeld, Karen Parinas, and Janet Williams for their reviews of the framework.

Supplemental Material

This article contains the following supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.07460520/-/DCSupplemental.

Supplemental Appendix 1. Dialysis allocation framework algorithm simulation.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. White DB,
    2. Katz MH,
    3. Luce JM,
    4. Lo B
    : Who should receive life support during a public health emergency? Using ethical principles to improve allocation decisions. Ann Intern Med 150: 132–138, 2009pmid:19153413
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Emanuel EJ,
    2. Persad G,
    3. Upshur R,
    4. Thome B,
    5. Parker M,
    6. Glickman A,
    7. Zhang C,
    8. Boyle C,
    9. Smith M,
    10. Phillips JP
    : Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of covid-19. N Engl J Med 382: 2049–2055, 2020pmid:32202722
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Gordon EJ
    : Haunted by the “god committee”: Reciprocity does no justice to eliminating social disparities. Am J Bioeth 4: 23–25; discussion W35-7, 2004pmid:16192192
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Jonsen AR
    : The god squad and the origins of transplantation ethics and policy. J Law Med Ethics 35: 238–240, 2007pmid:17518848
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Berlinger N,
    2. Wynia M,
    3. Powell T,
    4. Hester DM,
    5. Milliken A,
    6. Fabi R,
    7. Cohn F,
    8. Guidry-Grimes LK,
    9. Watson JC,
    10. Bruce L,
    11. Chuang EJ,
    12. Oei G,
    13. Abbott J,
    14. Jenks NP
    : Ethical Framework for Health Care Institutions & Guidelines for Institutional Ethics Services Responding to Coronavirus Pandemic. Managing Uncertainty, Safeguarding Communities, Guiding Practice, 2020. Available at: https://www.thehastingscenter.org/ethicalframeworkcovid19/. Accessed December 29, 2020
  6. ↵
    British Columbia Ministry of Health: Responding to British Columbia’s Overdose Public Health Emergency - An Ethics Framework, 2017. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/overdose-public-health-emergency-ethics-framework-march-2017.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2020
  7. ↵
    1. Jiwani B
    : Ethically justified decisions. Healthc Manage Forum 28: 86–89, 2015pmid:25838581
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. British Columbia Ministry of Health
    : COVID-19 Ethical Decision-Making Framework, 2020. Available at: http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/covid-19-care/ethics. Accessed December 29, 2020
  9. ↵
    1. Durvasula R,
    2. Wellington T,
    3. McNamara E,
    4. Watnick S
    : COVID-19 and kidney failure in the acute care setting: Our experience from Seattle. Am J Kidney Dis 76: 4–6, 2020pmid:32276031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Mogul F
    : Shortage of dialysis equipment leads to difficult decisions in New York ICUs. Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/19/838103327/shortage-of-dialysis-equipment-leads-to-difficult-decisions-in-new-york-icus. Accessed May 10, 2020
  11. ↵
    1. Reed A,
    2. Sheri F,
    3. Nicholas K,
    4. Thomas K
    : An overlooked, possibly fatal coronavirus crisis: A dire need for kidney dialysis. New York Times, 2020. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/health/kidney-dialysis-coronavirus.html. Accessed May 10, 2020
  12. ↵
    1. Goldfarb DS,
    2. Benstein JA,
    3. Zhdanova O,
    4. Hammer E,
    5. Block CA,
    6. Caplin NJ,
    7. Thompson N,
    8. Charytan DM
    : Impending shortages of kidney replacement therapy for COVID-19 patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 880–882, 2020
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Agarwal A,
    2. Zoccali C,
    3. Jha V
    ; International Society of Nephrology: Ensuring Optimal Care for People with Kidney Diseases during the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020. Available at: https://www.theisn.org/initiatives/covid-19/official-statements/#pandemic. Accessed December 29, 2020
  14. ↵
    1. White DB,
    2. Lo B
    : A framework for rationing ventilators and critical care beds during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA 323: 1773–1774, 2020pmid:32219367
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    : COVID-19 Rapid Guideline: Critical Care in Adults, 2020. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng159. Accessed December 29, 2020
  16. ↵
    1. White DB,
    2. Katz M,
    3. Luce J,
    4. Lo B
    : Allocation of scarce critical care resources during a public health emergency. Available at: https://ccm.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/UnivPittsburgh_ModelHospitalResourcePolicy_2020_04_15.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2020
  17. ↵
    1. Burgner A,
    2. Ikizler TA,
    3. Dwyer JP
    : COVID-19 and the inpatient dialysis unit: Managing resources during contingency planning pre-crisis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 720–722, 2020 pmid:32245780
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Xu S,
    2. Li Y
    : Beware of the second wave of COVID-19. Lancet 395: 1321–1322, 2020pmid:32277876
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. AriadneLabs
    : COVID-19 Conversation Guide for Outpatient Care, 2020. Available at: https://covid19.ariadnelabs.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/08/2.-COVID-19-Conversation-Guide-for-Outpatient-Care.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2020
  20. ↵
    1. AriadneLabs
    : COVID-19 Telehealth Communication Tips, 2020. Available at: https://covid19.ariadnelabs.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/05/3.-Telehealth-Communication-Tips.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2020
  21. ↵
    1. Brown E,
    2. Cullis B,
    3. Cairns H,
    4. Bowes E,
    5. Naljayan M,
    6. Davies S;
    7. ISNAcademy
    : ISN-ISPD Webinar: Use of PD for COVID19-associated AKI: Clinical experience and updated 2020 ISPD guidelines. Available at: https://bit.ly/PD-AKI-COVID. Accessed December 29, 2020
  22. ↵
    1. Christian MD
    : Triage. Crit Care Clin 35: 575–589, 2019pmid:31445606
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Persad G,
    2. Wertheimer A,
    3. Emanuel EJ
    : Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet 373: 423–431, 2009pmid:19186274
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Nagel E,
    2. Lauerer M
    1. Bognar G:
    In: Prioritization in Medicine: An International Dialogue, edited by Nagel E, Lauerer M, Cham, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp 163–177
  25. ↵
    1. Reckers-Droog V,
    2. van Exel J,
    3. Brouwer W
    : Equity weights for priority setting in healthcare: Severity, age, or both? Value Health 22: 1441–1449, 2019pmid:31806201
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Daugherty Biddison EL,
    2. Gwon H,
    3. Schoch-Spana M,
    4. Cavalier R,
    5. White DB,
    6. Dawson T,
    7. Terry PB,
    8. London AJ,
    9. Regenberg A,
    10. Faden R,
    11. Toner ES
    : The community speaks: Understanding ethical values in allocation of scarce lifesaving resources during disasters. Ann Am Thorac Soc 11: 777–783, 2014pmid:24762135
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Archard D,
    2. Caplan A
    : Is it wrong to prioritise younger patients with COVID-19? BMJ 369: m1509, 2020pmid:32321730
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Cameron J,
    2. Savulescu J,
    3. Wilkinson D
    : Is withdrawing treatment really more problematic than withholding treatment? [published online ahead of print May 25, 2020] J Med Ethics 10.1136/medethics-2020-106330pmid:32451343
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Beauchamp TL,
    2. Childress JF
    : Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th Ed., New York, Oxford University Press, 2001
  30. ↵
    1. Bandrauk N,
    2. Downar J,
    3. Paunovic B
    ; Canadian Critical Care Society Ethics Committee: Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: The Canadian Critical Care Society position paper. Can J Anaesth 65: 105–122, 2018pmid:29150778
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Anderson RT,
    2. Cleek H,
    3. Pajouhi AS,
    4. Bellolio MF,
    5. Mayukha A,
    6. Hart A,
    7. Hickson LJ,
    8. Feely MA,
    9. Wilson ME,
    10. Giddings Connolly RM,
    11. Erwin PJ,
    12. Majzoub AM,
    13. Tangri N,
    14. Thorsteinsdottir B
    : Prediction of risk of death for patients starting dialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 14: 1213–1227, 2019pmid:31362990
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Hemmelgarn BR,
    2. Manns BJ,
    3. Quan H,
    4. Ghali WA
    : Adapting the Charlson comorbidity index for use in patients with ESRD. Am J Kidney Dis 42[Suppl 2]: 125–132, 2003pmid:12830464
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. White DB
    : A Model Hospital Policy for Allocating Scarce Critical Care Resources, 2020. Available at: https://ccm.pitt.edu/?q=content/model-hospital-policy-allocating-scarce-critical-care-resources-available-online-now. Accessed August 30, 2020
  34. ↵
    New York State Department of Health: Ventilator Allocation Guidelines, 2015. Available at: https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/task_force/reports_publications/docs/ventilator_guidelines.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2020
  35. ↵
    1. DeJong C,
    2. Chen AH,
    3. Lo B
    : An ethical framework for allocating scarce inpatient medications for COVID-19 in the US. JAMA 323: 2367–2368, 2020pmid:32412580
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. White DB
    ; Department of Critical Care Medicine: A Model Hospital Policy for Fair Allocation of Medications to Treat COVID-19, 2020. Available at: https://ccm.pitt.edu/node/1133. Accessed August 30, 2020
  37. ↵
    1. Truog RD,
    2. Mitchell C,
    3. Daley GQ
    : The toughest triage—Allocating ventilators in a pandemic. N Engl J Med 382: 1973–1975, 2020 pmid:32202721
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Painter K
    : US ventilator crisis brings patients and doctors face-to-face with life-or-death choices. BMJ 369: m1800, 2020pmid:32371411
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Piscitello GM,
    2. Kapania EM,
    3. Miller WD,
    4. Rojas JC,
    5. Siegler M,
    6. Parker WF
    : Variation in ventilator allocation guidelines by US state during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A systematic review. JAMA Netw Open 3: e2012606, 2020pmid:32558916
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Ohnuma T,
    2. Uchino S
    : Prediction models and their external validation studies for mortality of patients with acute kidney injury: A systematic review. PLoS One 12: e0169341, 2017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Chang CH,
    2. Fan PC,
    3. Chang MY,
    4. Tian YC,
    5. Hung CC,
    6. Fang JT,
    7. Yang CW,
    8. Chen YC
    : Acute kidney injury enhances outcome prediction ability of sequential organ failure assessment score in critically ill patients. PLoS One 9: e109649, 2014pmid:25279844
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Kim Y,
    2. Park N,
    3. Kim J,
    4. Kim DK,
    5. Chin HJ,
    6. Na KY,
    7. Joo KW,
    8. Kim YS,
    9. Kim S,
    10. Han SS
    : Development of a new mortality scoring system for acute kidney injury with continuous renal replacement therapy. Nephrology (Carlton) 24: 1233–1240, 2019pmid:31487094
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Kotani Y,
    2. Fujii T,
    3. Uchino S,
    4. Doi K
    ; JAKID Study Group: Modification of sequential organ failure assessment score using acute kidney injury classification. J Crit Care 51: 198–203, 2019pmid:30878015
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Goswami J,
    2. Balwani MR,
    3. Kute V,
    4. Gumber M,
    5. Patel M,
    6. Godhani U
    : Scoring systems and outcome of chronic kidney disease patients admitted in intensive care units. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 29: 310–317, 2018pmid:29657198
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Wang H,
    2. Kang X,
    3. Shi Y,
    4. Bai ZH,
    5. Lv JH,
    6. Sun JL,
    7. Pei HH
    : SOFA score is superior to APACHE-II score in predicting the prognosis of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy. Ren Fail 42: 638–645, 2020pmid:32660294
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Lai J,
    2. Ma S,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Cai Z,
    5. Hu J,
    6. Wei N,
    7. Wu J,
    8. Du H,
    9. Chen T,
    10. Li R,
    11. Tan H,
    12. Kang L,
    13. Yao L,
    14. Huang M,
    15. Wang H,
    16. Wang G,
    17. Liu Z,
    18. Hu S
    : Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Netw Open 3: e203976, 2020pmid:32202646
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Bai Y,
    2. Lin CC,
    3. Lin CY,
    4. Chen JY,
    5. Chue CM,
    6. Chou P
    : Survey of stress reactions among health care workers involved with the SARS outbreak. Psychiatr Serv 55: 1055–1057, 2004pmid:15345768
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 16 (7)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 16, Issue 7
July 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Balancing the Needs of Acute and Maintenance Dialysis Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Balancing the Needs of Acute and Maintenance Dialysis Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Rachel C. Carson, Brian Forzley, Sarah Thomas, Nina Preto, Gaylene Hargrove, Alice Virani, John Antonsen, Melanie Brown, Michael Copland, Marie Michaud, Anurag Singh, Adeera Levin
CJASN Jul 2021, 16 (7) 1122-1130; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.07460520

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Balancing the Needs of Acute and Maintenance Dialysis Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Rachel C. Carson, Brian Forzley, Sarah Thomas, Nina Preto, Gaylene Hargrove, Alice Virani, John Antonsen, Melanie Brown, Michael Copland, Marie Michaud, Anurag Singh, Adeera Levin
CJASN Jul 2021, 16 (7) 1122-1130; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.07460520
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • The Role of Triage Teams
    • Strengths and Weaknesses
    • Limitations
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Acknowledgments
    • Supplemental Material
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Music for Health
  • Prescribing Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid) for COVID-19 in Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease
  • Trainee Perspectives on Race, Antiracism, and the Path toward Justice in Kidney Care
Show more Invited Features

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • COVID-19
  • chronic disease
  • renal replacement therapy
  • acute care
  • ethics
  • acute kidney injury
  • triage

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals
  • Wolters Kluwer Partnership

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire