Communication of bed allocation decisions in a critical care unit and accountability for reasonableness
- PMID: 16259634
- PMCID: PMC1298296
- DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-67
Communication of bed allocation decisions in a critical care unit and accountability for reasonableness
Abstract
Background: Communication may affect perceptions of fair process for intensive care unit bed allocation decisions through its impact on the publicity condition of accountability for reasonableness.
Methods: We performed a qualitative case study to describe participant perceptions of the communication of bed allocation decisions in an 18-bed university affiliated, medical-surgical critical care unit at Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre. Interviewed participants were 3 critical care physicians, 4 clinical fellows in critical care, 4 resource nurses, 4 "end-users" (physicians who commonly referred patients to the unit), and 3 members of the administrative staff. Median bed occupancy during the study period (Jan-April 2003) was 18/18; daily admissions and discharges (median) were 3. We evaluated our description using the ethical framework "accountability for reasonableness" (A4R) to identify opportunities for improvement.
Results: The critical care physician, resource nurse, critical care fellow and end-users (trauma team leader, surgeons, neurosurgeons, anesthesiologists) functioned independently in unofficial "parallel tracks" of bed allocation decision-making; this conflicted with the official designation of the critical care physician as the sole authority. Communication between key decision-makers was indirect and could exclude those affected by the decisions; notably, family members. Participants perceived a lack of publicity for bed allocation rationales.
Conclusion: The publicity condition should be improved for critical care bed allocation decisions. Decision-making in the "parallel tracks" we describe might be unavoidable within usual constraints of time, urgency and demand. Formal guidelines for direct communication between key participants in such circumstances would help to improve the fairness of these decisions.
Figures

Similar articles
-
Priority setting in a hospital critical care unit: qualitative case study.Crit Care Med. 2003 Dec;31(12):2764-8. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098440.74735.DE. Crit Care Med. 2003. PMID: 14668612
-
Seasonal bed closures in an intensive care unit: a qualitative study.J Crit Care. 2003 Mar;18(1):25-30. doi: 10.1053/jcrc.2003.YJCRC6. J Crit Care. 2003. PMID: 12640610
-
SARS and hospital priority setting: a qualitative case study and evaluation.BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Dec 19;4(1):36. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-36. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004. PMID: 15606924 Free PMC article.
-
Intensive care unit admissions do not pass the reasonableness test.Crit Care Med. 2003 Dec;31(12):2809-11. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098849.84086.FF. Crit Care Med. 2003. PMID: 14668623 Review. No abstract available.
-
The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process.J Med Ethics. 2008 Jul;34(7):534-9. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.021683. J Med Ethics. 2008. PMID: 18591289 Review.
Cited by
-
Patient Prioritization for Proton Beam Therapy in a Cost-neutral Payer Environment: Use of the Clinical Benefit Score for Resource Allocation.Cureus. 2019 Sep 19;11(9):e5703. doi: 10.7759/cureus.5703. Cureus. 2019. PMID: 31720171 Free PMC article.
-
Managing daily intensive care activities: an observational study concerning ad hoc decision making of charge nurses and intensivists.Crit Care. 2011 Aug 8;15(4):R188. doi: 10.1186/cc10341. Crit Care. 2011. PMID: 21824420 Free PMC article.
-
Principles and reality of proton therapy treatment allocation.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Jul 1;89(3):499-508. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.03.023. Epub 2014 May 3. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014. PMID: 24798985 Free PMC article.
-
Public views on a wait time management initiative: a matter of communication.BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Aug 5;10:228. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-228. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010. PMID: 20687952 Free PMC article.
-
DUNDRUM-2: Prospective validation of a structured professional judgment instrument assessing priority for admission from the waiting list for a forensic mental health hospital.BMC Res Notes. 2011 Jul 3;4:230. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-230. BMC Res Notes. 2011. PMID: 21722397 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Anonymous Fair Allocation Of Intensive Care Unit Resources. American Thoracic Society American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine. 1997;156:1282–1301. - PubMed
-
- Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee Consensus Statement On The Triage Of Critically Ill Patients. JAMA. 2004;271:1200–1203. - PubMed
-
- Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? Oxford, Oxford University Press; 2002.
-
- Mielke J, Martin DK, Singer PA. Priority Setting In A Hospital Critical Care Unit: Qualitative Case Study. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:2764–2768. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098440.74735.DE. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous