The Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines for the Allocation of Critical Care Resources to Adults During Crisis-Level Shortages (2026) present evidence-based recommendations addressing the allocation of scarce ICU resources during periods of extreme demand. These crisis-level shortages involve deficits in essential resources such as ICU beds, staff, and equipment, which significantly disrupt the delivery of care to critically ill patients. The guidelines aim to support clinicians in triage decision-making, prioritising strategies that maximise survival while maintaining ethical and equitable care.
The guidelines were developed by a multidisciplinary panel convened by the American College of Critical Care Medicine. The panel included clinicians, nurses, ethicists, legal experts, and patient representatives, supported by methodologists using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Five key clinical questions were formulated using the Patient, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes (PICO) framework. A systematic review of the literature was conducted up to November 2023, with evidence assessed for quality and certainty. Despite rigorous methodology, the panel found limited high-quality evidence to guide many aspects of ICU triage.
Triage is defined as the prioritisation of patients for ICU admission when demand exceeds capacity. ICU capacity depends on physical infrastructure, staffing, and expertise, and can be optimised through flow-sizing, which aligns resource availability with patient demand. Although foundational triage principles, such as prioritising patients based on likelihood of benefit, remain unchanged since earlier guidelines, the current update emphasises the need for evidence-based approaches rather than reliance on expert opinion alone.
Across the five PICO questions, the panel issued only one conditional recommendation and five statements of “no recommendation” due to insufficient evidence.
For the first question, comparing clinician judgement with time-based (first-come, first-served) ICU admission, no recommendation was made. The panel found no direct comparative studies, largely because real-world decision-making typically involves a combination of both approaches. Ethical and logistical challenges make randomised studies in this area difficult. Some modelling studies suggest that dynamic allocation strategies may slightly improve outcomes, but the evidence remains indirect and limited.
Similarly, for the second question regarding the use of formal triage tools (e.g., scoring systems) versus no tools, no recommendation was issued. While such tools may improve consistency and reduce bias, existing studies did not directly evaluate their effectiveness in true surge conditions or in guiding ICU admission decisions. Most research focused on prognostic accuracy rather than triage outcomes, limiting applicability.
The third question examined strategies when ICU beds are unavailable. For interfacility transfer of critically ill patients, the panel again made no recommendation. Evidence from a single nonrandomised study suggested no difference in mortality between transferred and non-transferred patients, although transfers were associated with longer ICU and hospital stays. The broader impact on healthcare systems, resource use, and equity remains unclear, particularly given variability in transport logistics and access across regions and populations.
The panel also evaluated whether hospitals should establish designated non-ICU areas for critically ill patients during surges. No recommendation was made due to a lack of comparative studies assessing outcomes in such settings. Although widely implemented during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, existing studies are largely descriptive and do not provide robust evidence on effectiveness or safety.
The fourth question addressed whether ICU-trained practitioners or usual care providers should manage critically ill patients in non-ICU settings. Again, no recommendation was possible due to absence of direct evidence. While tiered staffing models were commonly used during the pandemic, comparative outcome data are lacking.
The only recommendation made relates to the early involvement of palliative care services in critically ill patients at high risk of death during ICU shortages. This was a conditional recommendation based on very low-certainty evidence. Meta-analyses suggested that early palliative care may reduce ICU and hospital length of stay, although effects on mortality, quality of dying, and family satisfaction were uncertain. The panel judged that early palliative care likely improves alignment of treatment with patient values and enhances end-of-life care, with minimal harm.
Overall, the certainty of evidence across all questions was low or very low, reflecting methodological limitations, heterogeneity, and lack of direct studies in crisis conditions. The panel emphasised that triage decisions must balance clinical effectiveness, ethical considerations, feasibility, and equity. In the absence of strong evidence, clinician judgement remains central, guided by established triage principles and patient preferences.
The guidelines highlight significant gaps in knowledge and propose a research agenda to address them. Priorities include evaluating triage strategies using large datasets and mathematical modelling, assessing the impact of objective triage tools, studying outcomes of interfacility transfers and non-ICU care models, and exploring optimal staffing approaches. Further research is also needed to determine the cost-effectiveness and integration of palliative care in ICU workflows.
Crisis-level ICU shortages present profound challenges to patient care. Although triage is essential to optimise outcomes, there is a striking lack of high-quality evidence to inform decision-making. These guidelines underscore the need for continued research, transparent processes, and ethical accountability, while reaffirming the importance of clinician judgement and patient-centred care during times of resource scarcity.
Source: Critical Care Medicine
Image Credit: iStock
