The topic of not initiating resuscitation from the perspective of Czech law not only in the context of palliative care.

In the age of advanced modern medicine, prolonging the lives of patients is becoming easier and easier. Science is even going so far that some authors are beginning to see the need to advocate for the patient's right to die. The authors of the recommended resuscitation procedures themselves state that prolonging the inevitable dying process should be considered a harm (dysthanasia). The issue of not initiating urgent resuscitation is part of not only clinical practice, but also the study of physicians and other health professionals. The various criteria, indications, and contraindications for this action are repeatedly discussed in the course of study and practice, but rarely does this discussion go into significant detail. The teaching is limited to their enumeration or description of some of the more clearly understood ones, which are, for example, certain signs of death and their presence. The terminal stage of an incurable chronic disease is only marginally mentioned as a contraindication to urgent resuscitation, perhaps due to its ethical and legal overlap. The article includes an analysis of the sources of regulation of this issue, focusing mainly on legal and professional sources and their relationship. It also describes the actual process of decision making about the initiation of palliative care, decision making about end-of-life care, including the issue of not initiating urgent resuscitation.

Coaching doctors to improve ethical decision-making in adult hospitalized patients potentially receiving excessive treatment. The CODE stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess whether coaching doctors to enhance ethical decision-making in teams improves (1) goal-oriented care operationalized via written do-not-intubate and do-not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNI-DNACPR) orders in adult patients potentially receiving excessive treatment (PET) during their first hospital stay and (2) the quality of the ethical climate. METHODS: We carried out a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) and 9 referring internal medicine departments of Ghent University Hospital between February 2022 and February 2023. Doctors and nurses in charge of hospitalized patients filled out the ethical decision-making climate questionnaire (ethical decision-making climate questionnaire, EDMCQ) before and after the study, and anonymously identified PET via an electronic alert during the entire study period. All departments were randomly assigned to a 4-month coaching. At least one month of coaching was compared to less than one month coaching and usual care. The first primary endpoint was the incidence of written DNI-DNACPR decisions. The second primary endpoint was the EDMCQ before and after the study period. Because clinicians identified less PET than required to detect a difference in written DNI-DNACPR decisions, a post-hoc analysis on the overall population was performed. To reduce type I errors, we further restricted the analysis to one of our predefined secondary endpoints (mortality up to 1 year). RESULTS: Of the 442 and 423 clinicians working before and after the study period, respectively 270 (61%) and 261 (61.7%) filled out the EDMCQ. Fifty of the 93 (53.7%) doctors participated in the coaching for a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 4.36 (2.55) sessions. Of the 7254 patients, 125 (1.7%) were identified as PET, with 16 missing outcome data. Twenty-six of the PET and 624 of the overall population already had a written DNI-DNACPR decision at study entry, resulting in 83 and 6614 patients who were included in the main and post hoc analysis, respectively. The estimated incidence of written DNI-DNACPR decisions in the intervention vs. control arm was, respectively, 29.7% vs. 19.6% (odds ratio 4.24, 95% confidence interval 4.21-4.27; P < 0.001) in PET and 3.4% vs. 1.9% (1.65, 1.12-2.43; P = 0.011) in the overall study population. The estimated mortality at one year was respectively 85% vs. 83.7% (hazard ratio 2.76, 1.26-6.04; P = 0.011) and 14.5% vs. 15.1% (0.89, 0.72-1.09; P = 0.251). The mean difference in EDMCQ before and after the study period was 0.02 points (- 0.18 to 0.23; P = 0.815). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that coaching doctors regarding ethical decision-making in teams safely improves goal-oriented care operationalized via written DNI-DNACPR decisions in hospitalized patients, however without concomitantly improving the quality of the ethical climate.

Reviewing Ethical Guidelines for the Care of Patients with Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders after 30 Years: Rethinking Our Approach at a Time of Transition.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) opposes automatic reversal of do-not-resuscitate orders during the perioperative period, instead advocating for a goal-directed approach that aligns decision-making with patients' priorities and clinical circumstances. Implementation of ASA guidelines continues to face significant barriers including time constraints, lack of longitudinal relationships with patients, and difficulty translating goal-focused discussion into concrete clinical plans. These challenges mirror those of advance care planning more generally, suggesting a need for novel frameworks for serious illness communication and patient-centered decision-making. This review considers ASA guidelines in the context of ongoing transitions to serious illness communication and increasingly multidisciplinary perioperative care. It aims to provide practical guidance for the practicing anesthesiologist while also acknowledging the complexity of decision-making, considering limitations inherent to anesthesiologists' role, and outlining a need to conceptualize delivery of ethically informed care as a collaborative, multidisciplinary endeavor.

Issues and implications of the life-sustaining treatment decision act: comparing the data from the survey and clinical data of inpatients at the end-of-life process.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals had difficulty choosing the right time to discuss life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) since the Korean Act was passed in 2018. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how patients decide to undergo LSTs in clinical practice and to compare the perceptions of these decisions among health professionals, patients, and families with suggestions to support the self-directed decisions of patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective observational study with electronic medical records (EMRs) and a descriptive survey was used. METHODS: The data obtained from the EMRs included all adult patients who died in end-of-life care at a university hospital in 2021. We also conducted a survey of 214 health professionals and 100 patients and their families (CNUH IRB approval no. 2022-07-006). RESULTS: Based on the EMR data of 916 patients in end-of-life care, 78.4% signed do-not-attempt-resuscitation consents, 5.6% completed the documents for LSTs, and 10.2% completed both forms. LST decisions were mostly made by family members (81.5%). Most survey participants agreed that meaningless LSTs should be suspended, and the decision should be made by patients. Patients and family members (42-56%) and health professionals (56-58%) recommended discussing LST suspension when the patient is still conscious but with predicted deterioration of their condition. The suffering experienced by the patient was considered to be a priority by most patients (58%) and families (54%) during the decision-making process, while health professionals considered "the possibility of the patient's recovery" to be the highest priority (43-55%). CONCLUSIONS: There is still a significant discrepancy in the perceptions of LST decisions among health professionals, patients, and their families despite high awareness of the Act. This situation makes it challenging to implement the Act to ensure respect for the rights of patients to self-determination and dignified end-of-life. Further effort is needed to improve the awareness of LSTs and to clarify the ambiguity of document preparation timing.

The Evolution of the Ethical Guidelines of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

In 1992, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Committee on Ethics was formed primarily to address the rights of patients with existing Do-Not-Resuscitate orders presenting for anesthesia. Guidelines written for the ethical management of these patients stated that such orders should be reconsidered-not rescinded-thus respecting patient self-determination. The Committee also rewrote the reigning Guidelines for the Ethical Practice of Anesthesiology by expanding its ethical foundations to reflect the evolving climate of ethical opinions. These Guidelines described ethically appropriate conduct and behavior, including anesthesiologists' ethical responsibilities to patients, themselves, colleagues, health-care institutions, and community and society.

Do not resuscitate orders and limitation of therapeutic effort: Ethical challenges in healthcare teams in Chile. / Orden de no reanimar y limitación del esfuerzo terapéutico: desafíos éticos en equipos sanitarios en Chile.

The purpose of this paper is to delve into the ethical aspects experienced by the healthcare team when they receive the directive to limit therapeutic effort or a do-not-resuscitate order. From an interpretative, qualitative paradigm with a content analysis approach, a process based on three phases was conducted: pre-analysis in which categories were identified, the projection of the analysis, and inductive analysis. During 2023, interviews were conducted in the clinical setting of a high-complexity hospital in Chile with 56 members of the healthcare teams from critical and emergency units, from which four categories emerged: a) the risk of violating patients' rights by using do-not-resuscitate orders and limiting therapeutic effort; b) the gap in the interpretation of the legal framework addressing the care and attention of patients at the end of life or with terminal illnesses by the healthcare team; c) ethical conflicts in end-of-life care; and d) efficient care versus holistic care in patients with terminal illness. There are significant gaps in bioethics training and aspects of a good death in healthcare teams facing the directive to limit therapeutic effort and not resuscitate. It is suggested to train personnel and work on a consensus guide to address the ethical aspects of a good death.

El propósito de este trabajo es profundizar en los aspectos éticos que experimenta el equipo de salud cuando reciben la indicación de limitar el esfuerzo terapéutico o la orden de no reanimar. Desde un paradigma interpretativo, cualitativo y con un enfoque de análisis de contenido, se realizó un proceso basado en tres fases: preanálisis en el que se identificaron las categorías, la proyección del análisis y el análisis inductivo. Durante 2023, se realizaron entrevistas en el entorno clínico de un hospital de alta complejidad en Chile a 56 miembros de equipos de salud de unidades críticas y urgencias, de las que emergieron cuatro categorías: a) riesgo de vulnerar los derechos de los pacientes al utilizar la orden de no reanimar, y limitación del esfuerzo terapéutico; b) brecha en la interpretación del marco legal que aborda la atención y cuidado de pacientes al final de la vida, o con enfermedades terminales por parte del equipo de salud; c) conflictos éticos de la atención al final de la vida; y d) el cuidado eficiente o el cuidado holístico en pacientes con enfermedad terminal. Existen brechas importantes en la formación en bioética y aspectos del buen morir en los equipos de salud que se enfrentan a la orden de limitar el esfuerzo terapéutico y no reanimar. Se sugiere capacitar al personal, y trabajar una guía de consenso para abordar los aspectos éticos del buen morir.

At the threshold of viability: to resuscitate or not to resuscitate - the perspectives of Israeli neonatologists.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the perspectives of neonatologists in Israel regarding resuscitation of preterm infants born at 22-24 weeks gestation and their consideration of parental preferences. The factors that influence physicians' decisions on the verge of viability were investigated, and the extent to which their decisions align with the national clinical guidelines were determined. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive and correlative study using a 47-questions online questionnaire. RESULTS: 90 (71%) of 127 active neonatologists in Israel responded. 74%, 50% and 16% of the respondents believed that resuscitation and full treatment at birth are against the best interests of infants born at 22, 23 and 24 weeks gestation, respectively. Respondents' decisions regarding resuscitation of extremely preterm infants showed significant variation and were consistently in disagreement with either the national clinical guidelines or the perception of what is in the best interest of these newborns. Gender, experience, country of birth and the level of religiosity were all associated with respondents' preferences regarding treatment decisions. Personal values and concerns about legal issues were also believed to affect decision-making. CONCLUSION: Significant variation was observed among Israeli neonatologists regarding delivery room management of extremely premature infants born at 22-24 weeks gestation, usually with a notable emphasis on respecting parents' wishes. The current national guidelines do not fully encompass the wide range of approaches. The country's guidelines should reflect the existing range of opinions, possibly through a broad survey of caregivers before setting the guidelines and recommendations.

Aligning patient values and code status: Choice of Diction's Effect (CODE) study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding resuscitation after cardiac arrest are critical from ethical, patient satisfaction, outcome, and healthcare cost standpoints. Physician-reported discussion barriers include topic discomfort, fear of time commitment, and difficulty articulating end-of-life concepts. The influence of language used in these discussions has not been tested. This study explored whether utilizing the alternate term "allow (a) natural death" changed code status decisions in hospitalized patients versus "do not resuscitate" (DNR). METHODS: All patients age 65 and over admitted to a general medicine hospital teaching service were screened (English-speaking, not ICU-level care, no active psychiatric illness, no substance misuse, no active DNR). Participants were randomized to resuscitation discussions with either DNR or "allow natural death" as the "no code" phrasing. Outcomes included patient resuscitation decision, satisfaction with and duration of the conversation, and decision correlation with illness severity and predicted resuscitation success. RESULTS: 102 participants were randomized to the "allow natural death" (N = 49) or DNR (N = 53) arms. The overall "no code" rate for our sample of hospitalized general medicine inpatients age >65 was 16.7%, with 13% in the DNR and 20.4% in the "allow natural death" arms (p = 0.35). Discussion length was similar in the DNR and "allow natural death" arms (3.9 + 3.2 vs. 4.9 + 3.9 minutes), and not significantly different (p = 0.53). Over 90% of participants were highly satisfied with their code status decision, without difference between arms (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Participants' code status discussions did not differ in "no code" rate between "allow natural death" and DNR arms but were short in length and had high patient satisfaction. Previously reported code status discussion barriers were not encountered. It is appropriate to screen code status in all hospitalized patients regardless of phrasing used.

Do-not-resuscitate order in COVID-19 times: bioethics and professional ethics.

OBJECTIVE: To reflect about the do-not-resuscitation order at COVID-19 in Brazil, under bioethical focus and medical and nursing professional ethics. METHOD: Reflection study based on the principlist bioethics of Beauchamps and Childress and in professional ethics, problematizing actions, and decisions of non-resuscitation in the pandemic. RESULTS: It is important to consider the patient's clinic, appropriation of treatment goals for people with comorbidities, elderly people, with less chance of surviving to resuscitation, or less quality of life, with the palliative care team, to avoid dysthanasia, use of scarce resources and greater exposure of professionals to contamination. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 increased the vulnerabilities of professionals and patients, impacting professional decisions and conduct more widely than important values ​​such as the restriction of freedom. It propelled the population in general to rethink ethical and bioethical values ​​regarding life and death, interfering in decisions about them, supported by human dignity.

Viability and thresholds for treatment of extremely preterm infants: survey of UK neonatal professionals.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about treatments for extremely preterm infants (EPIs) born in the 'grey zone' of viability can be ethically complex. This 2020 survey aimed to determine views of UK neonatal staff about thresholds for treatment of EPIs given a recently revised national Framework for Practice from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. METHODS: The online survey requested participants indicate the lowest gestation at which they would be willing to offer active treatment and the highest gestation at which they would withhold active treatment of an EPI at parental request (their lower and upper thresholds). Relative risks were used to compare respondents' views based on profession and neonatal unit designation. Further questions explored respondents' conceptual understanding of viability. RESULTS: 336 respondents included 167 consultants, 127 registrars/fellows and 42 advanced neonatal nurse practitioners (ANNPs). Respondents reported a median grey zone for neonatal resuscitation between 22+1 and 24+0 weeks' gestation. Registrars/fellows were more likely to select a lower threshold at 22+0 weeks compared with consultants (Relative Risk (RR)=1.37 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.74)) and ANNPs (RR=2.68 (95% CI 1.42 to 5.06)). Those working in neonatal intensive care units compared with other units were also more likely to offer active treatment at 22+0 weeks (RR=1.86 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.94)). Most participants understood a fetus/newborn to be 'viable' if it was possible to survive, regardless of disability, with medical interventions accessible to the treating team. CONCLUSION: Compared with previous studies, we found a shift in the reported lower threshold for resuscitation in the UK, with greater acceptance of active treatment for infants <23 weeks' gestation.

COVID-19-Related Ethics Consultations at a Cancer Center in New York City: A Content Review of Ethics Consultations During the Early Stages of the Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised a variety of ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Limited data are available on how a patient's concomitant cancer diagnosis affected ethical concerns raised during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all COVID-related ethics consultations registered in a prospectively collected ethics database at a tertiary cancer center between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Primary and secondary ethical issues, as well as important contextual factors, were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical ethics consultations were performed on 24 patients with cancer (58.3% male; median age, 65.5 years). The most common primary ethical issues were code status (n = 11), obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (n = 3), patient autonomy (n = 3), resource allocation (n = 3), and delivery of care wherein the risk to staff might outweigh the potential benefit to the patient (n = 3). An additional nine consultations raised concerns about staff safety in the context of likely nonbeneficial treatment as a secondary issue. Unique contextual issues identified included concerns about public safety for patients requesting discharge against medical advice (n = 3) and difficulties around decision making, especially with regard to code status because of an inability to reach surrogates (n = 3). CONCLUSION: During the early pandemic, the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 spurred a number of ethics consultations, which were largely focused on code status. Most cases also raised concerns about staff safety in the context of limited benefit to patients, a highly unusual scenario at our institution that may have been triggered by critical supply shortages.

Resuscitating Patient Rights during the Pandemic: COVID-19 and the Risk of Resurgent Paternalism.

The COVID-19 Pandemic a stress test for clinical medicine and medical ethics, with a confluence over questions of the proportionality of resuscitation. Drawing upon his experience as a clinical ethicist during the surge in New York City during the Spring of 2020, the author considers how attitudes regarding resuscitation have evolved since the inception of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders decades ago. Sharing a personal narrative about a DNR quandry he encountered as a medical intern, the author considers the balance of patient rights versus clinical discretion, warning about the risk of resurgent physician paternalism dressed up in the guise of a public health crisis.

Bringing into focus treatment limitation and DNACPR decisions: How COVID-19 has changed practice.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR. METHODS: The study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019. RESULTS: A total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease.

An alternative approach to developing guidelines for the management of an anticipated extremely preterm infant.

Objectives To identify the probability of survival and severe neurodevelopmental impairment (sNDI) at which perinatal physicians would or would not offer or recommend resuscitation at birth for extremely preterm infants. Methods A Delphi process consisting of five rounds was implemented to seek consensus (>80% agreement) amongst British Columbia perinatal physicians. The first-round consisted of neonatal and maternal-fetal-medicine Focus Groups. Rounds two to five surveyed perinatal physicians, building upon previous rounds. Draft guidelines were developed and agreement sought. Results Based on 401 responses across all rounds, consensus was obtained that resuscitation should not be offered if survival probability <5%, not recommended if survival probability 5 to <10%, resuscitation recommended if survival without sNDI probability >70 to 90% and resuscitation standard care if survival without sNDI >90%. Conclusions This physician consensus-based, objective framework for the management of an anticipated extremely preterm infant is a transparent alternative to existing guidelines, minimizing gestational-ageism and allowing for individualized management utilizing up-to-date data. Further input from other key stakeholders will be required prior to guideline implementation.