Ethics Consultation in United States Hospitals: Assessment of Training Needs.

BACKGROUND: To help inform the development of more accessible, acceptable, and effective ethics consultation (EC) training programs, we conducted an EC training needs assessment, exploring ethics practitioners' opinions on: the relative importance of various EC practitioner competencies; the potential market for EC training (that is, how many individuals would benefit and how much individuals and hospitals would be willing to pay); and the preferred content, format, and characteristics of EC training. METHODS: As part of a multipart study, we surveyed "best informants" who self-identified as the person most actively involved in EC or healthcare ethics in a random sample of 600 U.S. general hospitals, stratified for bed size. RESULTS: The competency that was ranked most important for a lead or solo ethics consultant was knowledge of ethics, while common sense was ranked least important. The median estimated number of individuals at each hospital who would benefit from EC training was six at the basic level, three at the advanced level, and two for EC management training. In 19.1 percent of hospitals, respondents thought their hospital would not be willing to pay anything for EC training within the next two years. Respondents thought potential trainees would be likely to participate in EC training on multiple different topics. Opinions varied widely on preferred formats. Most respondents thought it very important to be able to interact with instructors and with other trainees, practice EC skills, receive a certificate for completing EC training, and complete EC training during work hours. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide U.S. population data that may be useful to healthcare educators and bioethics leaders in their efforts to develop EC training programs and products that match trainees' preferences and needs.

Getting Real: The Maryland Healthcare Ethics Committee Network's COVID-19 Working Group Debriefs Lessons Learned.

Responding to a major pandemic and planning for allocation of scarce resources (ASR) under crisis standards of care requires coordination and cooperation across federal, state and local governments in tandem with the larger societal infrastructure. Maryland remains one of the few states with no state-endorsed ASR plan, despite having a plan published in 2017 that was informed by public forums across the state. In this article, we review strengths and weaknesses of Maryland's response to COVID-19 and the role of the Maryland Healthcare Ethics Committee Network (MHECN) in bridging gaps in the state's response to prepare health care facilities for potential implementation of ASR plans. Identified "lessons learned" include: Deliberative Democracy Provided a Strong Foundation for Maryland's ASR Framework; Community Consensus is Informative, Not Normative; Hearing Community Voices Has Inherent Value; Lack of Transparency & Political Leadership Gaps Generate a Fragmented Response; Pandemic Politics Requires Diplomacy & Persistence; Strong Leadership is Needed to Avoid Implementing ASR … And to Plan for ASR; An Effective Pandemic Response Requires Coordination and Information-Sharing Beyond the Acute Care Hospital; and The Ability to Correct Course is Crucial: Reconsidering No-visitor Policies.

Challenges of Dealing with Financial Concerns during Life-Threatening Illness: Perspectives of Health Care Practitioners.

The costs of serious medical illness and end of life care are often a heavy burden for patients and families (Collins, Stepanczuk, Williams, & Rich, 2016 ; Kim, 2007 ; May et al., 2014 ; Zarit, 2004 ). Twenty-six practitioners, including social workers, managers/administrators, supervisors, and case managers from five health care settings, participated in qualitative semistructured interviews about financial challenges patients encountered. Seven practitioners took part in a focus group. Practitioners were recruited from hospice (n = 5), long-term care (n = 5), intensive care (n = 5), dialysis (n = 6), and oncology (n = 5). Interview and focus group questions focused on financial challenges patients encountered when facing life-threatening illness. Interview data were transcribed and thematically coded and trustworthiness of data was established with peer debriefing, member checking, and agreement on themes among the authors. Practitioners described interacting micro, meso, and macroinfluences on the financial well-being and challenges patients encountered. Microlevel influences involved patient characteristics, such as their demographic profile and/or health status that set them up for financial aptitude or challenges. Macrolevel influences involved the larger health care/safety net system, which provided valuable resources for some patients but not others. Practitioners also discussed the mesolevel of influence, the local setting where they worked to match available resources with patients' individual needs given the constraints emerging from the micro and macrolevels. Practitioners described how they navigated the interplay of these three areas to meet patients' needs and cope with financial challenges. Implications for practice point to directly addressing the kind of financial concerns that patients and families facing financial burden from serious medical illness have, and identifying ways to bridge knowledge and resource access gaps at the individual, organizational, and societal levels.

Human milk biomonitoring data: interpretation and risk assessment issues.

Biomonitoring data can, under certain conditions, be used to describe potential risks to human health (for example, blood lead levels used to determine children's neurodevelopmental risk). At present, there are very few chemical exposures at low levels for which sufficient data exist to state with confidence the link between levels of environmental chemicals in a person's body and his or her risk of adverse health effects. Human milk biomonitoring presents additional complications. Human milk can be used to obtain information on both the levels of environmental chemicals in the mother and her infant's exposure to an environmental chemical. However, in terms of the health of the mother, there are little to no extant data that can be used to link levels of most environmental chemicals in human milk to a particular health outcome in the mother. This is because, traditionally, risks are estimated based on dose, rather than on levels of environmental chemicals in the body, and the relationship between dose and human tissue levels is complex. On the other hand, for the infant, some information on dose is available because the infant is exposed to environmental chemicals in milk as a "dose" from which risk estimates can be derived. However, the traditional risk assessment approach is not designed to consider the benefits to the infant associated with breastfeeding and is complicated by the relatively short-term exposures to the infant from breastfeeding. A further complexity derives from the addition of in utero exposures, which complicates interpretation of epidemiological research on health outcomes of breastfeeding infants. Thus, the concept of "risk assessment" as it applies to human milk biomonitoring is not straightforward, and methodologies for undertaking this type of assessment have not yet been fully developed. This article describes the deliberations of the panel convened for the Technical Workshop on Human Milk Surveillance and Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals in the United States, held at the Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, on several issues related to risk assessment and human milk biomonitoring. Discussion of these topics and the thoughts and conclusions of the panel are described in this article.

Management of cancer-related and noncancer-related chronic pain in Connecticut: successes and failures.

Findings are reported from a survey of Connecticut HMO patients who had one of three conditions associated with pain: cancer, arthritis, and neuropathic diagnoses. From each group, 145 patients were randomly selected to receive a mailed survey. The overall eligible response rate was 73%. About two thirds had experienced pain for over a year, and the same percentage was experiencing pain at the time of the survey. Seventy-three percent of respondents with cancer pain (RCs) rated their pain in the moderate range, compared to 37.5% of respondents with arthritis pain (RAs) and neuropathic pain (RNPs). More RAs and RNPs (41.5%) rated their pain in the severe range. Twenty-three percent of both RCs and RAs and 31% of RNPs had received no effective treatment for their pain. The percentage of respondents using prescription narcotics at the time of the survey was low (16%), and had dropped by almost half from the proportion using them in the past (29%). Side effects of pain medications and attitudes toward opioids were implicated as reasons for discontinuing pain medications. Respondents described substantial negative impact of pain on their abilities to perform various activities, but this had improved from the time when they first experienced their pain. Overall, the findings indicate that improvements have been made in the treatment of pain, particularly for patients with cancer pain. There is still room for improvement, particularly for individuals with chronic neuropathic pain. Specific recommendations are discussed.