Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Oct 31:5:67.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-67.

Communication of bed allocation decisions in a critical care unit and accountability for reasonableness

Affiliations

Communication of bed allocation decisions in a critical care unit and accountability for reasonableness

Andrew B Cooper et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Communication of ICU Bed Allocation Decisions. Communication involved in intensive care unit bed allocation decision-making is indirect. "End user physicians" speaking directly to the resource nurse, but not the critical care fellow or attending physician, constituted a "parallel track " of bed allocation decision-making. Arrows -direction of communication between participants Solid Lines- consistent communication of need for intensive care resource. Broken Lines- inconsistent communication of need for intensive care resource.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Anonymous Fair Allocation Of Intensive Care Unit Resources. American Thoracic Society American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine. 1997;156:1282–1301. - PubMed
    1. Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee Consensus Statement On The Triage Of Critically Ill Patients. JAMA. 2004;271:1200–1203. - PubMed
    1. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? Oxford, Oxford University Press; 2002.
    1. 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
    1. Strosberg MA, Teres D. Intensive Care Unit Admissions Do Not Pass The Reasonableness Test. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:2809–2811. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000098849.84086.FF. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources