Using a Diagnostic OSCE to Discern Deficit From Disability in Struggling Students.

PROBLEM: When medical students with disabilities fail, identifying the underlying cause is challenging. Faculty unfamiliar with disability-related barriers or accommodations may falsely attribute academic struggles to disability. Fear of legal action may prompt inappropriate promotion of students with disabilities who are struggling to meet competencies. Therefore, a clear understanding of the origin of difficulty is critical to determining an appropriate response to the student's failure, including revision of accommodations, academic remediation, probation, and dismissal. APPROACH: A large Midwestern medical college created an innovative approach to differentiate between disability-related barriers and academic deficits by creating a diagnostic objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). The goal of this OSCE was to determine the need for additional or refined accommodations versus clinical remediation, and to guide future decision making about a student on academic probation. Using 3 simulated cases that drew on a cross section of clinical knowledge, a team of clinical and disability specialists observed a disabled student to determine the origin of that student's difficulties in a clinical rotation. OUTCOMES: Using the diagnostic OSCE, the team quickly identified clinical reasoning and fund of knowledge deficits, and need for further accommodations. As a result, the team was able to remediate the clinical deficits, augment the current accommodations in vivo, and determine the potential impact on performance. The team approach was documented and facilitated the legally required interactive process for determining additional barriers, efficacy of existing accommodations, and need for additional reasonable accommodations. All parties reported a positive experience. The collective knowledge and expertise of the team helped confirm the origin of the deficit: a fundamental lack of knowledge and reasoning skills versus a disability-related barrier. NEXT STEPS: The next step is to formalize this process to ensure appropriate evaluation of students with disabilities.

A Right to Privacy and Confidentiality: Ethical Medical Care for Patients in United States Immigration Detention.

Recently, John Doe, an undocumented immigrant who was detained by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was admitted to a hospital off-site from a detention facility. Custodial officers accompanied Mr. Doe into the exam room and refused to leave as physicians examined him. In this analysis, we examine the ethical dilemmas this case brings to light concerning the treatment of patients in immigration detention and their rights to privacy. We analyze what US law and immigration detention standards allow regarding immigration enforcement or custodial officers' presence in medical exams and documentation of detainee health information. We describe the ethical implications of the presence of officers in medical exam rooms, including its effects on the quality of the patient-provider relationship, patient privacy and confidentiality, and provider's ability to provide ethical care. We conclude that the presence of immigration enforcement or custodial officers during medical examination of detainees is a breach of the right to privacy of detainees who are not an obvious threat to the public. We urge ICE and the US Department of Homeland Security to clarify standards for and tighten enforcement around when officers are legally allowed to be stationed in medical exam rooms and document detainees' information.

A Pot Ignored Boils On: Sustained Calls for Explicit Consent of Intimate Medical Exams.

Unconsented intimate exams (UIEs) on men and women are known to occur for training purposes and diagnostic reasons, mostly during gynecological surgeries but also during prostate examinations and abdominal surgeries. UIEs most often occur on anesthetized patients but have also been reported on conscious patients. Over the last 30 years, several parties-both within and external to medicine-have increasingly voiced opposition to these exams. Arguments from medical associations, legal scholars, ethicists, nurses, and some physicians have not compelled meaningful institutional change. Opposition is escalating in the form of legislative bans and whistleblower reports. Aspiring to professional and scientific detachment, institutional consent policies make no distinction between intimate exams and exams on any other body part, but patients do not think of their intimate regions in a detached or neutral way and believe intimate exams call for special protections. UIEs are found to contribute to moral erosion and moral distress of medical students and compromise the sacred trust between the medical community and the general public. This paper refutes the main arguments in favor of the status quo, identifies a series of harms related to continuing the current practice, and proposes an explicit consent policy for intimate exams along with specific changes to medical school curriculum and institutional culture. Because patients are the rights-holders of their bodies, consent practices should reflect and uphold patient values which call for explicit consent for intimate exams.

Virginity testing: recommendations for primary care physicians in Europe and North America.

Virginity testing is a complex, culturally mediated practice that is poorly understood by Western clinicians. While advocating for global elimination of the practice of virginity testing as a human rights violation, clinical practice is often more complicated and ethically nuanced, and the clinician must act in the best interest of her patient. Upholding human rights does not have to be incompatible with providing a needed service to a patient, which should never include an invasive exam if not medically necessary, but should include education and safety assessments.

Physician Integrity, Templates, and the 'F' Word.

The medical profession is increasingly dependent upon electronic health records. Along with documented benefits, a number of potential ethical abuses have been outlined. Herein, we describe an ethical abuse that has received almost no attention, namely falsified medical records. We present three cases in which the medical record cited facts from history that were not elicited and findings from physical examination that was not performed. This is fraud. Prepopulated templates were almost certainly responsible. If a template is used, it must begin free of results-a skeleton onto which flesh is placed. If coders and third-party payers insist on having information than health care providers think relevant, then we, as a profession should "push back," but a template that has been prepopulated puts fraudulent data into electronic health record, seriously damaging physician integrity.

Sexual Assault Examination of the Unconscious Patient: A Legal, Ethical and Professional Grey-area for the Forensic Physician.

When treating unconscious patients believed to have been victims of sexual assault, forensic physicians must decide whether to conduct physical examinations in order to collect evidence while patients are unconscious and cannot consent. The choice is urgent: potential evidence may be lost before the patient regains the ability to consent. The physician's choice affects not only the patient's bodily integrity, but also their ability to pursue criminal and potentially civil justice remedies if they were assaulted. This article bases its discussion on one such real-life situation. It first examines ethical models relevant to deciding whether to take evidence and finds that no one approach produces morally satisfactory outcomes in every case. It then examines the legal framework guiding these decisions, finding that while collecting evidence without consent may well be permissible under New South Wales (NSW) legislation, relevant guidelines disallow it, placing physicians in a legal grey-area. The article concludes with practical recommendations to address these ethical, professional and legal challenges.

Medical students, sensitive examinations and patient consent: a qualitative review.

AIM: We set out to explore the question, what ethical challenges do medical students identify when asked to perform or observe a sensitive examination, given a historical background relevant to this context. METHOD: Thematic analysis of 21 Ethics Reports from 9 female and 12 male students. RESULTS: Overall 14 students undertook a sensitive examination without the patient's consent; three did not carry out a sensitive examination because of a lack of consent; and two students (or their senior colleagues) gained the patient's written consent for the student to undertake the examination. One patient refused the student's request for consent to perform a digital rectal examination; and in the final case, verbal consent was given by the patient for the student to observe a bimanual examination only. Three interrelated core themes arose from thematic analysis of the research question: systemic constraints on getting consent; internal conflicts of interest; and, power and hierarchy. CONCLUSIONS: A number of senior medical students at our institution disclosed observing or performing sensitive examinations on patients without the patients' knowledge or consent.

Communication and Ethics in the Clinical Examination.

At the heart of every effective patient-physician interaction is a relationship that is built on trust. Cultivating sound communication skills coupled with the awareness and application of ethical principles is integral to this process. One of the foremost challenges in competent practice is negotiating situations that arise at the bedside when such issues as patient autonomy, differing world views, honesty, and cost stewardship come into conflict. It is essential for health care providers to consider how to detect and prioritize these issues as they advocate for high-quality and patient-centered care.

Educational pelvic exams on anesthetized women: Why consent matters.

It is argued here that the practice of medical students performing pelvic exams on women who are under anesthetic and have not consented is immoral and indefensible. This argument begins by laying out the ethical justification for the practice of informed consent, which can be found in autonomy and basic rights. Foregoing the process of consent within medicine can result in violations of both autonomy and basic rights, as well as trust, forming the basis of the wrong of unauthorized pelvic examinations. Several objections to this argument are considered, all of which stem from the idea that this practice constitutes an exception to the general requirement of informed consent. These objections suggest that nonconsensual pelvic examinations on women under anesthetic are ethically acceptable on utilitarian grounds, in that they offer benefits either to the patient or to society, or on the grounds of triviality, in that consent is already presumed, or the practice is insignificant. Each of these objections is rejected and the practice is deemed indefensible.