Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Taking Triage to Trial

By Kirk S. Davis & Danielle C. Gordet on April 6, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The COVID 19 epidemic is bound to overwhelm available medical resources in the United States. Healthcare institutions and practitioners will be forced to make impossible life-or-death decisions regarding the allocation of manpower and supplies. They must also be ready to defend those decisions against a backlash of grief—and lawsuits—once the crisis has passed.

A defensible triage protocol must enable reasonable decisions and must include three components:

  • Clearly defined written policies and procedures
  • Written documentation that the policies were followed
  • Training on the materials

Written policies and procedures

On March 28th, the head of the emergency department (ED) at NYU Langone sent an email instructing ED doctors to “think more critically about who we intubate.” The directive was based on the hospital’s pre-COVID-19 guidelines. However, doctors complained that asking them to make “snap judgements about how well a patient will do based on little to no information is a tremendous burden to place on them” and “way too close to playing God.” (Article available here.)

NYU Langone doctors have legal cause for concern as well. That same day, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a bulletin regarding these types of decisions. The bulletin warned that denying medical care based on “stereotypes, assessments of quality of life, or judgments about a person’s relative ‘worth’ based on the presence or absence of disabilities or age” was a violation under federal law.

The controversy is a stark reminder of the difficult task at hand. Healthcare providers will ultimately be forced to defend their pandemic decision-making against established standards of care. In order to protect both patients and providers, healthcare institutions must step up now with pandemic-specific triage guidelines. These guidelines must be:

  1. written and readily accessible.
  2. designed to prevent critical decision-making from doctors at the point of care. This will protect physicians dealing with complex procedures outside their areas of expertise. It will also protect physicians thrust into critical decision-making roles with incomplete medical training. (See article available here.)
  3. vetted by all relevant stake holders, including the hospital’s Chief Medical Officer, legal counsel, ethics committee, and risk and compliance departments.
  4. clear about chains of command within the hospital (if a decision is not clear to the attending medical professional, whose help must she/he seek?)
  5. based on a patient’s comprehensive health care history, as opposed to single (potentially legally and ethically fraught) considerations such as “age” or “potential quality of life.” (See related articles available here and here.)

Written documentation

Once the triage protocol is established, written documentation must cover every decision made:

  1. Who made the decision to provide or exclude care?
  2. Where and when was the decision made? For example, was it made at the time of admission or as another patient with a better prognosis arrived?
  3. Why was the decision made?
  4. What intrinsic factors did the healthcare provider consider before arriving at their decision? For example, was it based upon the number of ventilators, or the number of adequately trained personnel?

This documentation will become critical when grieving relatives start seeking answers—and the institutions are placed in a position to defend their medical choices.

If the documentation does not exist, post pandemic, the only evidence remaining will be the bad outcome.

Training

Implementing a new policy during the crisis might prove difficult when so many risk and compliance departments are working from home.  At a bare minimum, the institution must ensure that every potentially affected party receives the written protocol and is trained on its contents.

In the end, reasonableness will be the standard.  The documentation must make the case that:

  1. The right decision was made;
  2. At the right time; and
  3. For the right reason.

Please be reasonable and safe.

 

Photo of Kirk S. Davis Kirk S. Davis

An accomplished litigator, Kirk Davis represents hospitals and health systems in complex regulatory compliance issues and disputes with a focus on medical malpractice and peer review hearings. Kirk has decades of experience in the peer review process and has been involved in all…

An accomplished litigator, Kirk Davis represents hospitals and health systems in complex regulatory compliance issues and disputes with a focus on medical malpractice and peer review hearings. Kirk has decades of experience in the peer review process and has been involved in all aspects of hearings, from prosecuting physicians to defending medical staff and serving as a hearing officer. He helps hospitals comply with federal and state laws by recommending peer review best practices and procedures. In addition to his work on medical malpractice matters, Kirk handles disputes between physicians in private practices and effectively resolves contentious medical practice dissolution through alternative dispute resolution. Kirk has served as an arbitrator in various healthcare-related matters and is a sought after speaker on health law topics. He is Board Certified in Health Law by The Florida Bar and recognized by Chambers USA as a leading lawyer in healthcare.

Read more about Kirk S. DavisEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Danielle C. Gordet Danielle C. Gordet

Danielle Gordet focuses her practice on healthcare, including healthcare compliance, conflicts of interest, scope of practice issues, physician contracting, and regulations. Her ability to identify, investigate, and resolve complex issues in collaboration with healthcare administrators allows her to provide them with effective counsel…

Danielle Gordet focuses her practice on healthcare, including healthcare compliance, conflicts of interest, scope of practice issues, physician contracting, and regulations. Her ability to identify, investigate, and resolve complex issues in collaboration with healthcare administrators allows her to provide them with effective counsel in developing policies and procedures which reduce the risk of inappropriate conduct and prevent non-compliance. She provides expertise on federal and state healthcare statutory and regulatory issues, including adherence to the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and licensure compliance. In addition, Danielle assists manufacturers of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated products in obtaining necessary FDA clearances for their devices. Danielle works with healthcare administrators on resolving a variety of legal matters, including issues surrounding hospital bylaws, licensure and credentialing, telemedicine, codes of conduct, and Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. On behalf of healthcare providers, she negotiates and drafts contractual agreements including medical directorships, physician employment, clinical trials, and consulting arrangements.

Read more about Danielle C. GordetEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care and Life Sciences
  • Blog:
    Health Law Rx
  • Organization:
    Akerman LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo