Operationalizing the role of the nurse ethicist: More than a job.

The idea of a role in nursing that includes expertise in ethics has been around for more than 30 years. Whether or not one subscribes to the idea that nursing ethics is separate and distinct from bioethics, nursing practice has much to contribute to the ethical practice of healthcare, and with the strong grounding in ethics and aspiration for social justice considerations in nursing, there is no wonder that the specific role of the nurse ethicist has emerged. Nurse ethicists, expert in nursing practice and the application of ethical theories and concepts, are well positioned to guide nurses through complex ethical challenges. However, there is limited discussion within the field regarding the specific job responsibilities that the nurse ethicist ought to have. The recent appearance of job postings with the title "nurse ethicist" suggest that some healthcare institutions have identified the value of a nurse in the practice of ethics and are actively recruiting. Discomfort about the possibility of others defining the role of the nurse ethicist inspired this paper (and special issue). If the nurse ethicist is to be seen as an integral part of addressing ethical dilemmas and ethical conflicts that arise in healthcare, then nurse ethicists ought to be at the forefront of defining this role. In this paper, we draw upon our own experiences as nurse ethicists in large academic healthcare systems to describe the essential elements that ought to be addressed in a job description for a nurse ethicist practicing in a clinical setting linked to academic programs. Drawing upon our experience and the literature, we describe how we perceive the nurse ethicist adds value to healthcare organizations and teams of professional ethicists.

American Academy of Nursing Expert Panel consensus statement on nursing's roles in ensuring universal palliative care access.

The purpose of this consensus paper was to convene leaders and scholars from eight Expert Panels of the American Academy of Nursing and provide recommendations to advance nursing's roles and responsibility to ensure universal access to palliative care. Part I of this consensus paper herein provides the rationale and background to support the policy, education, research, and clinical practice recommendations put forward in Part II. On behalf of the Academy, the evidence-based recommendations will guide nurses, policy makers, government representatives, professional associations, and interdisciplinary and community partners to integrate palliative nursing services across health and social care settings. The consensus paper's 43 authors represent eight countries (Australia, Canada, England, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, South Africa, United States of America) and extensive international health experience, thus providing a global context for the subject matter. The authors recommend greater investments in palliative nursing education and nurse-led research, nurse engagement in policy making, enhanced intersectoral partnerships with nursing, and an increased profile and visibility of palliative nurses worldwide. By enacting these recommendations, nurses working in all settings can assume leading roles in delivering high-quality palliative care globally, particularly for minoritized, marginalized, and other at-risk populations.

Assessment of Discordance Between Surrogate Care Goals and Medical Treatment Provided to Older Adults With Serious Illness.

Importance: An important aspect of high-quality care is ensuring that treatments are in alignment with patient or surrogate decision-maker goals. Treatment discordant with patient goals has been shown to increase medical costs and prolong end-of-life difficulties. Objectives: To evaluate discordance between surrogate decision-maker goals of care and medical orders and treatments provided to hospitalized, incapacitated older patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included 363 patient-surrogate dyads. Patients were 65 years or older and faced at least 1 major medical decision in the medical and medical intensive care unit services in 3 tertiary care hospitals in an urban Midwestern area. Data were collected from April 27, 2012, through July 10, 2015, and analyzed from October 5, 2018, to December 5, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Each surrogate's preferred goal of care was determined via interview during initial hospitalization and 6 to 8 weeks after discharge. Surrogates were asked to select the goal of care for the patient from 3 options: comfort-focused care, life-sustaining treatment, or an intermediate option. To assess discordance, the preferred goal of care as determined by the surrogate was compared with data from medical record review outlining the medical treatment received during the target hospitalization. Results: A total of 363 dyads consisting of patients (223 women [61.4%]; mean [SD] age, 81.8 [8.3] years) and their surrogates (257 women [70.8%]; mean [SD] age, 58.3 [11.2] years) were included in the analysis. One hundred sixty-nine patients (46.6%) received at least 1 medical treatment discordant from their surrogate's identified goals of care. The most common type of discordance involved full-code orders for patients with a goal of comfort (n = 41) or an intermediate option (n = 93). More frequent in-person contact between surrogate and patient (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.82), patient residence in an institution (AOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.82), and surrogate-rated quality of communication (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99) were associated with lower discordance. Surrogate marital status (AOR for single vs married, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.01-3.66), number of family members involved in decisions (AOR for ≥2 vs 0-1, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.05-3.21), and religious affiliation (AOR for none vs any, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.12-21.09) were associated with higher discordance. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that discordance between surrogate goals of care and medical treatments for hospitalized, incapacitated patients was common. Communication quality is a modifiable factor associated with discordance that may be an avenue for future interventions.

"Doctor, what would you do?": physicians' responses to patient inquiries about periviable delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess obstetricians' and neonatologists' responses to standardized patients (SPs) asking "What would you do?" during periviable counseling encounters. METHODS: An exploratory single-center simulation study. SPs, portraying a pregnant woman presenting with ruptured membranes at 23 weeks, were instructed to ask, "What would you do?" if presented options regarding delivery management or resuscitation. Responses were independently reviewed and classified. RESULTS: We identified five response patterns: 'Disclose' (9/28), 'Don't Know' (11/28), 'Deflect' (23/28), 'Decline' (2/28), and 'Ignore' (2/28). Most physicians utilized more than one response pattern (22/28). Physicians 'deflected' the question by: restating or offering additional medical information; answering with a question; evoking a hypothetical patient; or redirecting the SP to other sources of support. When compared with neonatologists, obstetricians (40% vs. 15%) made personal or professional disclosures more often. Though both specialties readily acknowledged the importance of values in making a decision, only one physician attempted to elicit the patient's values. CONCLUSION: "What would you do?" represented a missed opportunity for values elicitation. Interventions are needed to facilitate values elicitation and shared decision-making in periviable care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If physicians fail to address patients' values and goals, they lack the information needed to develop patient-centered plans of care.