Table 1

COVID-19 triage ethical guidance, published per country, with description of references to frailty, disability, equity and other relevant information

AustriaBelgiumFranceGermanyGreeceIrelandItaly
Source(s)Secretariat of the Bioethics Commission, Vienna;
Austrian Society for Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Belgian Society of Emergency and Disaster Medicine and the Belgian Resuscitation Council;
Ethical Committee Care UZ Leuven
Azoulay et al 44;
Comité Consultatif National d'Ethique
German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency MedicineWHO Regional Office for EuropeDepartment of HealthItalian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Date of publication 31 March 2020;
17 March 2020
22 March 2020; 17 March 20205 June 2020; 13 March 202017 April 2020August 2017*27 March 202016 March 2020
‘Frailty’
  • Short-term prognosis using clinical risk assessment (COVID-19 severity, chronic disease/comorbidity, physical reserves)

  • Short-term prognosis and ‘good functional outcome’ using clinical frailty scale (severe comorbidity, chronic low quality of life, reduced cognition in elderly patients)

  • Baseline condition and frailty score (COVID-19 severity, age, comorbidities, neurocognitive status)

  • Short-term prognosis and clinical frailty scale (COVID-19 severity, comorbidities if relevant to current illness)

  • No unified national triage system

  • Short-term prognosis and premorbid and long-term functional health status (COVID-19 severity, comorbidities, frailty independent of age)

  • Short-term prognosis, life expectancy and functional status

  • ‘Clinical suitability’ (COVID-19 severity, comorbidities)

Disability
  • Special support/resources for those with disability to ensure equal access and life chances

  • None

  • Notes that prioritising greater life expectancy could negatively impact those with disabilities

  • No exclusion on the basis of underlying illnesses/disabilities

  • No unified national triage system

  • None (though no single factor should be used as exclusion criteria)

  • None

Equity
  • No exclusion based on non-medical criteria (including age, quality of life)

  • Each individual should have access to same current standard of care or ‘the best possible spread … to the maximum amount of people’

  • Value of each individual recognised as absolute

  • All individuals considered equally and according to same criteria

  • No unified national triage system

  • Recognises the moral equality of all people

  • Equal access to/chance of benefiting from healthcare

  • Allocation criteria apply to all intensive care patients

Other
  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency in documenting decision making

  • Involve local ethics advisory service

  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency in documenting decision making

  • Triage informed by expert team

  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency in documenting decision making

  • Recommends strategies to reduce stigmatisation of groups facing social inequalities

  • Involve local ethics advisory service

  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency to patients in decision making

  • Involve local ethics advisory service

  • No unified national triage system

  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency to patients and in documenting decision making

  • Involve stakeholders in preparedness planning

  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency to patients in decision making

  • Second opinion useful for difficult cases

  • Flexible/eligible for local adaptation

Luxembourg The Netherlands Poland Portugal Spain Switzerland UK
Source Commission Nationale d’ÉthiqueRoyal Dutch Medical AssociationPolish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive TherapyNational Council of Ethics for the Life SciencesSpanish Society of Intensive Critical Medicine and Coronary UnitsSwiss Academy of Medical SciencesNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence; British Medical Association; Royal College of Physicians
Date of publication 31 March 202016 June 2020October 2012*3 April 202021 March 202024 March 202029 April 2020; April 2020; 2 April 2020
Frailty
  • Short/medium term prognosis, general health

  • Short-term prognosis with clinical frailty score (including recovery time) but do not exclude ID/physical disability based on daily support needs

  • Short-term prognosis

  • Chronic, severe, end-of-life comorbid illness

  • None

  • Short-term prognosis

  • Chronic, severe, end-of-life comorbid illness

  • Short-term prognosis and perceived benefit of intensive care

  • Chronic, severe, end-of-life comorbid illness

  • Short-term prognosis with clinical frailty score (comorbidities, benefit vs risk, quality of life) but should not be used for younger people, those with stable/chronic disabilities, autism/ID

Disability
  • Discrimination based on disability absolutely prohibited

  • Creating capacity for care in neurodevelopmental/residential care settings

  • Should not consider ‘mental/physical limitation’, or prior quality of life

  • None

  • ‘Special attention’ to vulnerable groups

  • Avoid inequalities in access to diagnostics/treatments (eg, for those with chronic conditions)

  • Exclude ‘severe baseline cognitive impairment’

  • Discrimination based on chronic disability precluded

  • Duty to not disadvantage one group disproportionately (eg, disability)

  • Caution indirect discrimination, for example, ‘first come first served’/‘capacity to benefit quickly’ may disadvantage those with disabilities

Equity
  • No exclusion based on non-medical criteria

  • Value of each individual recognised as absolute

  • All patients treated fairly and equally

  • Allocation criteria apply to all intensive care patients

  • None

  • Value of each individual recognised as absolute

  • Selection criteria must be equitably applied for all who would benefit from ICU

  • Equity crucial as recognised principle of medical ethics

  • Each individual matters equally; equal chance of benefiting from resources should mean equal chance of receiving them

Other
  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency to patients and in documenting decision making

  • Involve local ethics advisory service

  • Transparency to patients and in documenting decision making

  • ‘The right care in the right place’ (eg, consider home treatment)

  • Triage informed by expert team

  • Focus on order of medical prioritisation, rather than inclusion/exclusion criteria

  • Transparency to patients and the public in decision making

  • Remove decision making responsibility from individual care providers

  • Case-by-case decision making

  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency to patients and in documenting decision making

  • Involve local ethics advisory service

  • Exclude those who need resources that cannot be provided

  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency in documenting decision making

  • Triage informed by expert team

  • Consider the will of the individual

  • Transparency to patients and in documenting decision making

  • Involve local ethics advisory service

  • Flexibility in adaptable circumstances

  • Malta is not included because no publicly available triage recommendations or documentation were identified.

  • *Current COVID-19 specific triage protocols were not identified, however existing information was available about allocation of resources in the case of shortages.

  • ID, intellectual disability.