Teenage Development and Parental Authority: applying consensus recommendations to adolescent care.

The consensus recommendations by Salter and colleagues (2023) regarding pediatric decision-making intentionally omitted adolescents due to the additional complexity their evolving autonomy presented. Using two case studies, one focused on truth-telling and disclosure and one focused on treatment refusal, this article examines medical decision-making with and for adolescents in the context of the six consensus recommendations. It concludes that the consensus recommendations could reasonably apply to older children.

How We Found Consensus on Pediatric Decision-Making and Why It Matters.

This article describes the process engaged by 17 expert scholars in the development of a set of six consensus recommendations about the normative foundations of pediatric decision-making. The process began with a robust pre-reading assignment, followed by three days of in-person symposium discussions that resulted in a publication in Pediatrics entitled "Pediatric Decision-Making: Consensus Recommendations" (Salter et al. 2023). This article next compares the six recommendations to existing statements about pediatric decision-making (specifically those developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics), highlighting similarities and differences. Finally, the article discusses the value of finding consensus in the field of pediatric bioethics.

Pediatric Decision Making: Consensus Recommendations.

Despite apparent disagreement in the scholarly literature on standards of pediatric decision making, a recognition that similar norms underpin many of the dominant frameworks motivated a June 2022 symposium "Best Interests and Beyond: Standards of Decision Making in Pediatrics" in St Louis, MO. Over the course of this 3-day symposium, 17 expert scholars (see author list) deliberated on the question "In the context of US pediatric care, what moral precepts ought to guide parents and clinicians in medical decision making for children?" The symposium and subsequent discussion generated 6 consensus recommendations for pediatric decision making, constructed with the primary goals of accessibility, teachability, and feasibility for practicing clinicians, parents, and legal guardians. In this article, we summarize these recommendations, including their justification, limitations, and remaining concerns.

Reasonableness as a Relational Principle: An Integrated Framework for Pediatric Decision-Making.

We modified and applied the surrogate decision-making framework of Buchanan and Brock for pediatrics, and present an integrated framework of pediatric health care decision-making, specifying authority and intervention principles, 2 guidance principles, and an additional category of relational principles, governing stakeholder interactions.

An Online COVID-19 Simulation to Explore Interprofessional Collaboration and Foster Systems Leadership Competencies in Doctor of Nursing Practice Students.

ABSTRACT: Organizational and systems leadership, a competency for doctor of nursing practice students, encompasses the evaluation of care delivery systems, accountable care of populations, and resolution of ethical dilemmas. Faculty created an online simulation in which students developed a management proposal for an impending pandemic. All students agreed or strongly agreed that the simulation increased their skills in systems-based thinking, increased their knowledge of others' roles and responsibilities in addressing health care crises, and enabled them to balance ethical considerations and societal interests. Online simulations are a feasible, cost-effective method to foster systems leadership competency and ethical decision-making in doctoral students.

Comparison Is Not a Zero-Sum Game: Exploring Advanced Measures of Healthcare Ethics Consultation.

BACKGROUND: Studies across the healthcare spectrum consistently show that sharing and comparing data across institutions improves the quality of patient care. Whether comparing data about healthcare ethics consultation (HCEC) would similarly improve quality is unknown due to the lack of research on HCEC data sharing and comparison. Methods: To explore this possibility, we analyzed data from two academic medical centers in the Central-Southern United States that both employ a shared, robust coding system for ethics consultations (N = 703 cases total over 2.5 years) using descriptive and chi-square statistics, correlation coefficients and logistic regressions. Results: Our findings relate to patient age, care location, requestor role, and ethical themes, which together contribute to an improved evidence base for explanatory analyses and quality improvement initiatives. Conclusions: We conclude it is possible to analyze and compare HCEC activities across separate institutions using a standardized approach to data gathering, that this approach is consistent with concurrent narrative case review and assessment, and that cross-institutional comparisons are meaningful. Our results suggest future comparative analyses will require additional standardization of advanced measures for describing and analyzing HCEC activities.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. DESIGN: Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. SETTING: North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. RESULTS: Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. LIMITATION: The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. CONCLUSION: Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

First Do No Harm: Ethical Concerns of Health Researchers That Discourage the Sharing of Results With Research Participants.

Background: Health researchers and health research participants support the sharing of research results; however, results are typically only shared through peer-reviewed publications. Few studies have investigated researchers' ethical concerns related to sharing results with research participants. Methods: An explanatory approach was used to explore the ethical concerns researchers may have with returning aggregate results to research participants. Researchers (N = 414) responded to an online survey of open-ended questions that allowed researchers to provide in-depth explanations regarding their responses to closed-ended questions. Results: Across researchers, the mean percentage of studies for which ethical concerns were reported as a barrier to results sharing was 38.5% (SD= 30.7). Researchers' primary ethical concerns with returning results were articulated as an overarching desire to prevent harm to participants. Three broad ethical concerns emerged, each with underlying subthemes: 1) distress, 2) understanding, and 3) privacy. Conclusions: This is the first study to broadly explore researchers' ethical concerns with sharing aggregate research results with participants and reveals that researchers' ethical concerns are closely tied to the ethical obligation to do no harm. In order to increase results sharing, steps must be taken to help researchers understand how to minimize potential harm when sharing results.

Offering the "Reasonable Interests Standard" in Response to Ross's Analysis of the Best Interests Standard.

Ross's argument against the best interest standard (BIS) makes a clear case for the problems of the BIS, and she also notes challenges with such notions as the harm principle. In light of these critiques, Ross champions her longstanding pediatric moral norm for decision making, constrained parental autonomy (CPA). This article argues that while Ross's critique of the traditional accounts of the BIS is correct, her solution still raises some concerns. As such, I offer the "reasonable interests standard" as a way of addressing what I see as weaknesses in both the BIS and CPA.

Posthumous HIV Disclosure and Relational Rupture.

In response to Anne L. Dalle Ave and David M. Shaw, we agree with their general argument but emphasize a moral risk of HIV disclosure in deceased donation cases: the risk of relational rupture. Because of the importance that close relationships have to our sense of self and our life plans, this kind of rupture can have long-ranging implications for surviving loved ones. Moreover, the now-deceased individual cannot participate in any relational mending. Our analysis reveals the hefty moral costs that disclosure can bring, which should influence what information is given to would-be donors and how organ procurement coordinators approach these conversations.

When a Mother Changes Her Mind About a DNR.

Generally, wide latitude is granted to parents when making decisions for their child on the basis of the wide acceptance of the special relationship between parent and child and the important role played by parents in the lives of children. However, when high-risk decisions are made, health care teams serve as an important societal safeguard that questions whether a parent is an appropriate decision-maker for their child. Child advocacy is an essential function of the pediatric health care team. In this ethics rounds, we examine a case of an infant with a complex medical condition requiring prolonged hospitalization that results in a clash of understanding between a mother and medical team when the mother abruptly requests removal of life-sustaining treatment. We present an ethical decision-making framework for such cases and examine the impact of barriers and unconscious bias that can exclude parents from their rightful role in directing care for their child.