Why Families Get Angry: Practical Strategies for Clinical Ethics Consultants to Rebuild Trust Between Angry Families and Clinicians in the Critical Care Environment.

Developing a care plan in a critical care context can be challenging when the therapeutic alliance between clinicians and families is compromised by anger. When these cases occur, clinicians often turn to clinical ethics consultants to assist them with repairing this alliance before further damage can occur. This paper describes five different reasons family members may feel and express anger and offers concrete strategies for clinical ethics consultants to use when working with angry families acting as surrogate decision makers for critical care patients. We reviewed records of consults using thematic analysis between January 2015 and June 2016. Each case was coded to identify whether the case involved a negative encounter with an angry family. In our review, we selected 11 cases with at least one of the following concerns or reasons for anger: (1) perceived or actual medical error, (2) concerns about the medical team's competence, (3) miscommunication, (4) perceived conflict of interest or commitment, or (5) loss of control. To successfully implement these strategies, clinical ethics consultants, members of the medical team, and family members should share responsibility for creating a mutually respectful relationship.

Setting Expectations for ECMO: Improving Communication Between Clinical Teams and Decision Makers.

Transplant medicine is fraught with clinical-ethical issues. It is not uncommon to have ethicists on transplant teams to help navigate ethically complex cases and ethical questions. Clinical ethicists work in hospitals and/or other healthcare institutions identifying and addressing value-laden conflict and ethical uncertainties. As ethicists, we set out to describe our process and involvement in cases involving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Our work centers on monitoring and optimizing communication among clinicians, families, and patients, with the goals of (1) aligning patient/family understanding of the nature and purpose of ECMO while encouraging realistic expectations for possible outcomes, and (2) proactively mitigating the moral distress of providers involved in complex ECMO cases. We close with recommendations for how to measure the impact of ethicists' involvement in ECMO cases.

Navigating Ethical Conflicts Between Advance Directives and Surrogate Decision-Makers' Interpretations of Patient Wishes.

There is little guidance on what clinicians should do when advance directives (or living wills, specifically) are challenged, particularly when surrogate decision-makers' interpretations of patients' wishes conflict with the living will. In our commentary, we make a controversial argument suggesting that overriding living wills can be ethically preferable to the alternative of strictly adhering to them. We propose four ethical considerations for determining whether it is ethically supportable to override living wills.

Reasoning Backwards by Design: Commentary on "Moral Reasoning among HEC Members".

Empirical assessment of the practice of clinical ethics is made difficult by the limited standardization of settings, structures, processes, roles, and training for ethics consultation, as well as by whether individual ethics consultants or hospital ethics committees (HECs) provide consultation. Efforts to study the relationship between theory and practice in the work of HECs likewise require the spelling out of assumptions and definition of key variables, based in knowledge of the core concepts of clinical ethics and logistics of clinical consultation. The survey of HEC members reported by Wasserman and colleagues illustrates the difficulty of such research and calls attention to need for studies of real-time, complex decision making to inform conclusions about how theory affects practice.