MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394582089 · doi:10.1007/s12630-024-02744-y

COVID-19 critical care triage across Canada: a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial triage protocols

2024· article· en· W4394582089 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah K. Andersen, Nathan Gamble, Oleksa Rewa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of PittsburghFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsTriageNarrativeCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)HumanitiesSociologyPsychologyMedicineMedical emergencyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions of scarcity that led many provinces within Canada to develop triage protocols for critical care resources. In this study, we sought to undertake a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial pandemic triage protocols. METHODS: We collected provincial triage protocols through personal correspondence with academic and political stakeholders between June and August 2020. Protocol data were extracted independently by two researchers and compared for accuracy and agreement. We separated data into three categories for comparative content analysis: protocol development, ethical framework, and protocol content. Our ethical analysis was informed by a procedural justice framework. RESULTS: We obtained a total of eight provincial triage protocols. Protocols were similar in content, although age, physiologic scores, and functional status were variably incorporated. Most protocols were developed through a multidisciplinary, expert-driven, consensus process, and many were informed by influenza pandemic guidelines previously developed in Ontario. All protocols employed tiered morality-focused exclusion criteria to determine scarce resource allocation at the level of regional health care systems. None included a public engagement phase, although targeted consultation with public advocacy groups and relevant stakeholders was undertaken in select provinces. Most protocols were not publicly available in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Early provincial COVID-19 triage protocols were developed by dedicated expert committees under challenging circumstances. Nonetheless, few were publicly available, and public consultation was limited. No protocols were ever implemented, including during periods of extreme critical care surge. A national approach to pandemic triage that incorporates additional aspects of procedural justice should be considered in preparation for future pandemics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.222
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.345
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2220.345
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0140.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésieSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207