Capacity Assessment in Emergency Surgery.

AbstractInformed consent is a necessary component of the ethical practice of surgery. Ideally, consent is performed in a setting conducive to a robust patient-provider conversation, with careful consideration of risks, benefits, and outcomes. For patients with medical or surgical emergencies, navigating the consent process can be complicated and requires both careful and expedited assessment of decision-making capacity. We present a recent case in which a patient in need of emergency care refused intervention, requiring urgent capacity assessment and a modification to usual care.

In-flight Medical Emergencies.

In 2018, approximately 2.8 million passengers flew in and out of U.S. airports per day. Twenty-four to 130 in-flight medical emergencies are estimated to occur per 1 million passengers; however, there is no internationally agreed-upon recording or classification system. Up to 70% of in-flight emergencies are managed by the cabin crew without additional assistance. If a health care volunteer is requested, medical professionals should consider if they are in an appropriate condition to render aid, and then identify themselves to cabin crew, perform a history and physical examination, and inform the cabin crew of clinical impressions and recommendations. An aircraft in flight is a physically constrained and resource-limited environment. When needed, an emergency medical kit and automated external defibrillator are available on all U.S. aircraft with at least one flight attendant and a capacity for 30 or more passengers. Coordinated communication with the pilot, any available ground-based medical resources, and flight dispatch is needed if aircraft diversion is recommended. In the United States, medical volunteers are generally protected by the Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998. There is no equivalent law governing international travel, and legal jurisdiction depends on the patient's and medical professional's countries of citizenship and the country in which the aircraft is registered.

Ethics, health policy, and Zika: From emergency to global epidemic?

Zika virus was recognised in 2016 as an important vector-borne cause of congenital malformations and Guillain-Barré syndrome, during a major epidemic in Latin America, centred in Northeastern Brazil. The WHO and Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO), with partner agencies, initiated a coordinated global response including public health intervention and urgent scientific research, as well as ethical analysis as a vital element of policy design. In this paper, we summarise the major ethical issues raised during the Zika epidemic, highlighting the PAHO ethics guidance and the role of ethics in emergency responses, before turning to ethical issues that are yet to be resolved. Zika raises traditional bioethical issues related to reproduction, prenatal diagnosis of serious malformations and unjust disparities in health outcomes. But the epidemic has also highlighted important issues of growing interest in public health ethics, such as the international spread of infectious disease; the central importance of reproductive healthcare in preventing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality; diagnostic and reporting biases; vector control and the links between vectors, climate change, and disparities in the global burden of disease. Finally, there are controversies regarding Zika vaccine research and eventual deployment. Zika virus was a neglected disease for over 50 years before the outbreak in Brazil. As it continues to spread, public health agencies should promote gender equity and disease control efforts in Latin America, while preparing for the possibility of a global epidemic.

Emergency general surgery in the geriatric patient.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery in the elderly is a particular challenge to the surgeon in charge of their care. The aim was to review contemporary aspects of managing elderly patients needing emergency general surgery and possible alterations to their pathways of care. METHODS: This was a narrative review based on a PubMed/MEDLINE literature search up until 15 September 2015 for publications relevant to emergency general surgery in the geriatric patient. RESULTS: The number of patients presenting as an emergency with a general surgical condition increases with age. Up to one-quarter of all emergency admissions to hospital may be for general surgical conditions. Elderly patients are a particular challenge owing to added co-morbidity, use of drugs and risk of poor outcome. Frailty is an important potential risk factor, but difficult to monitor or manage in the emergency setting. Risk scores are not available universally. Outcomes are usually severalfold worse than after elective surgery, in terms of both higher morbidity and increased mortality. A care bundle including early diagnosis, resuscitation and organ system monitoring may benefit the elderly in particular. Communication with the patient and relatives throughout the care pathway is essential, as indications for surgery, level of care and likely outcomes may evolve. Ethical issues should also be addressed at every step on the pathway of care. CONCLUSION: Emergency general surgery in the geriatric patient needs a tailored approach to improve outcomes and avoid futile care. Although some high-quality studies exist in related fields, the overall evidence base informing perioperative acute care for the elderly remains limited.

Patient-centred mountain medicine.

Venturing into the mountains, doctors have accompanied expeditions to provide routine care to the teams, undertake research and occasionally take on a rescue role. The role of doctors practicing mountain medicine is evolving. Public health issues involving concepts of health and safety have become necessary with the coming of commercial and youth expeditions. Increasingly individuals with a disability or a medical diagnosis choose to ascend to high altitudes. Doctors become involved in assessment of risk and providing advice for such individuals. The field of mountain medicine is perhaps unique in that acceptance of risk is part of the ethos of climbing and adventure. The pursuit of mountaineering goals may represent the ultimate conquest of a disability. Knowledge of mountain environment is essential in facilitating mountain ascents for those who choose to undertake them, in spite of a disability or medical condition.

Observation Care: Ethical and Legal Considerations for the Emergency Physician.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare observation rules remain controversial despite Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services revisions and the new 2-midnight rule. The increased financial risks for patients and heightened awareness of the rule have placed emergency physicians (EPs) at the center of the controversy. DISCUSSION: This article reviews the primary ethical and legal (particularly with respect to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) implications of the existing observation rule for EPs and offers practical solutions for EPs faced with counseling patients on the meaning and ramifications of the observation rule. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that while we believe it does not violate the intent of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act to respond to patient questions about their admission status, the observation rules challenge the ethical principles of transparency related to the physician-patient relationship and justice as fairness. Guidance for physicians is offered to improve transparency and patient fairness.

Re-evaluating ethical concerns in planned emergency research involving critically ill patients: an interpretation of the guidance document from the United States Food and Drug Administration.

BACKGROUND: U.S. federal regulations require that certain ethical elements be followed to protect human research subjects. The location and clinical circumstances of a proposed research study can differ substantially and can have significant implications for these ethical considerations. Both the location and clinical circumstances are particularly relevant for research in intensive care units (ICUs), where patients are often unable to provide informed consent to participate in a proposed research intervention. PURPOSE: Our goal is to elaborate on the updated 2013 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance document regarding an exemption from the requirement of obtaining informed consent from patients or their surrogates and to address certain elements within that document, thereby assisting clinicians in developing a framework for emergency research in accordance with the regulatory bodies at their own institutions and in the United States. METHODS: Review of the 2011 and updated FDA guidance document on exemption from informed consent. RESULTS: The current process of obtaining informed consent within ICUs needs to be revisited, especially for research in which timely informed consent is not likely. In particular, the process of obtaining informed consent may not be appropriate or even ethical for critically ill patients in extremis who require an intervention for which there is no current acceptable standard of care and clinical equipoise exists. We provide clinicians with a viewpoint that further elaborates on the FDA guidance document. LIMITATIONS: The viewpoints provided herein are those of the authors and are therefore inherently limited by the personal views of a selected few. Other clinicians or researchers may not interpret the FDA guidelines in a similar manner. Moreover, the discussion of a guideline document is a limitation in and of itself. The guidelines set forth by the FDA are precisely that-guidelines. Therefore, they may not be followed as outlined in the guidance document within one's own institution. Our goal is that, by elaborating on the guidelines for planned research involving human subjects in the ICU, institutional regulatory bodies may gain a better understanding in drafting their own document when faced with a clinician or a researcher who wishes to conduct planned research in an ICU. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the interpretations provided will allow clinicians to safely undertake planned research in ICUs without endangering the main tenets of ethical research involving human participants. This research is needed for the advancement of care in the critically ill.

Legal Briefing: Adult Orphans and the Unbefriended: Making Medical Decisions for Unrepresented Patients without Surrogates.

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving medical decision making for incapacitated patients who have no available legally authorized surrogate decision maker. These individuals are frequently referred to either as "adult orphans" or as "unbefriended," "isolated," or "unrepresented" patients. The challenges involved in obtaining consent for medical treatment on behalf of these individuals have been the subject of major policy reports. Indeed, caring for the unbefriended has even been described as the "single greatest category of problems" encountered in bioethics consultation. In 2012, JCE published a comprehensive review of the available mechanisms by which to make medical decisions for the unbefriended. The purpose of this "Legal Briefing" is to update the 2012 study. Accordingly, this "Legal Briefing" collects and describes significant legal developments from only the past three years. My basic assessment has not changed. "Existing mechanisms to address the issue of decision making for the unbefriended are scant and not uniform." Most facilities are "muddling through on an ad hoc basis." But the situation is not wholly negative. There have been a number of promising new initiatives. I group these developments into the following seven categories: 1. Increased Attention and Discussion 2. Prevention through Better Advance Care Planning 3. Prevention through Expanded Default Surrogate Lists 4. Statutorily Authorized Intramural Mechanisms 5. California Litigation Challenging the Team Approach 6. Public Guardianship 7. Improving Existing Guardianship Processes.

Making the case for a model mental health advance directive statute.

Acute episodes of mental illness temporarily destroy the capacity required to give informed consent and often prevent people from realizing they are sick, causing them to refuse intervention. Once a person refuses treatment, the only way to obtain care is as an involuntary patient. Even in the midst of acute episodes, many people do not meet commitment criteria because they are not likely to injure themselves or others and are still able to care for their basic needs. Left untreated, the episode will likely spiral out of control. By the time the person finally meets strict commitment criteria, devastation has already occurred. This Article argues that an individual should have the right to enter a Ulysses arrangement, a special type of mental health advance directive that authorizes a doctor to administer treatment during a future episode even if the episode causes the individual to refuse care. The Uniform Law Commissioners enacted the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act as a model statute to address all types of advance health care planning, including planning for mental illness. However, the Act focuses on end-of-life care and fails to address many issues faced by people with mental illness. For example, the Act does not empower people to enter Ulysses arrangements and eliminates writing and witnessing requirements that protect against fraud and coercion. This Article recommends that the Uniform Law Commissioners adopt a model mental health advance directive statute that empowers people to enter Ulysses arrangements and provides safeguards against abuse. Appendix A sets forth model provisions.

Refusal of emergency caesarean section in Ireland: a relational approach.

This article examines the issue of emergency caesarean section refusal. This raises complex legal and ethical issues surrounding autonomy, capacity, and the right to refuse treatment. In Ireland, the situation is complicated further by the constitutional right to life of the unborn. While cases involving caesarean section refusal have occurred in other jurisdictions, a case of this nature has yet to be reported in Ireland. This article examines possible ways in which the interaction of a woman's right to refuse treatment and the right to life of the unborn could be approached in Ireland in the context of caesarean section refusal. The central argument of the article is that the liberal individualistic approach to autonomy evident in the caesarean section cases in England and Wales is difficult to apply in the Irish context, due to the conflicting constitutional rights of the woman and foetus. Thus, alternative visions of autonomy which take the interests and rights of others into account in medical decision-making are examined. In particular, this article focuses on the concept of relational consent, as developed by Alasdair Maclean and examines how such an approach could be applied in the context of caesarean section refusal in Ireland. The article explains why this approach is particularly appropriate and identifies mechanisms through which such a theory of consent could be applied. It is argued that this approach enhances a woman's right to autonomy, while at the same time allows the right to life of the unborn to be defended.

Building an ethical environment improves patient privacy and satisfaction in the crowded emergency department: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention in improving emergency department (ED) patient privacy and satisfaction in the crowded ED setting. METHODS: A pre- and post-intervention study was conducted. A multifaceted intervention was implemented in a university-affiliated hospital ED. The intervention developed strategies to improve ED patient privacy and satisfaction, including redesigning the ED environment, process management, access control, and staff education and training, and encouraging ethics consultation. The effectiveness of the intervention was evaluated using patient surveys. Eligibility data were collected after the intervention and compared to data collected before the intervention. Differences in patient satisfaction and patient perception of privacy were adjusted for predefined covariates using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Structured questionnaires were collected with 313 ED patients before the intervention and 341 ED patients after the intervention. There were no important covariate differences, except for treatment area, between the two groups. Significant improvements were observed in patient perception of "personal information overheard by others", being "seen by irrelevant persons", having "unintentionally heard inappropriate conversations from healthcare providers", and experiencing "providers' respect for my privacy". There was significant improvement in patient overall perception of privacy and satisfaction. There were statistically significant correlations between the intervention and patient overall perception of privacy and satisfaction on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements were achieved with an intervention. Patients perceived significantly more privacy and satisfaction in ED care after the intervention. We believe that these improvements were the result of major philosophical, administrative, and operational changes aimed at respecting both patient privacy and satisfaction.

Always on call: thoughts from a neophyte physician.

This commentary describes a new physician who encountered a patient in crisis in a nonmedical environment. It discusses professional obligations, ethical principles, errors committed, and reasoning behind such errors. Unusual circumstances, uncertainty about how to properly identify oneself as a physician, self-doubt, and discomfort with practicing outside one's scope of training are recognized as reasons behind these errors. Medical students should be reminded of their ethical obligation to offer emergency care within their limitations, instructed how to identify themselves, and guided to become competent team leaders. Resident doctors should continue to receive instruction as they internalize ethical principles and identify their scopes of practice. Practicing physicians should be competent in offering basic emergency care if needed.

An open letter to institutional review boards considering Northfield Laboratories' PolyHeme® trial.

At the time of this writing, a widely publicized, waived-consent trial is underway. Sponsored by Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (Evanston, IL) the trial is intended to evaluate the emergency use of PolyHeme®, an oxygen-carrying resuscitative fluid that might prevent deaths from uncontrolled bleeding. The protocol allows patients in hemorrhagic shock to be randomized between PolyHeme® and saline in the field and, still without consent, randomized between PolyHeme® and blood after arrival at an emergency department. The Federal regulations that govern the waiver of consent restrict its applicability to circumstances where proven, satisfactory treatments are unavailable. Blood-the standard treatment for hemorrhagic shock-is not available in ambulances but is available in hospitals. The authors argue that the in-hospital stage of the study fails to meet ethical and regulatory standards.

Bedside ethics and health system catastrophe: imagine if you will...

Preparations for large-scale disasters have tended to focus on triage schema, stockpiling of materials, and other logistical concerns. Less attention has been given to the myriad of distressing and almost unthinkable ethically charged dilemmas that will emerge at the bedside during a catastrophe, and how they may be best managed. Yet, it is these bedside issues that may limit or thwart the effectiveness of disaster planning, and, therefore, they ought to be carefully considered.