Virtue ethics and the commitment to learn: overcoming disparities faced by transgender individuals.

The purpose of this paper is to utilize virtue ethics as the appropriate paradigm by which to improve health care delivery to transgender individuals. Health disparities for transgender individuals occur external to the medical environment as well as internal to the medical profession. A commitment to virtue ethics should be undertaken to improve the care to transgender individuals.In this manuscript I call on virtue ethics to address the intersectionality of such environmental structures for the promotion of the good of the patient as per the telos of medicine by Edmund Pellegrino, consistent with the eudaimonia of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Virtue ethics is the appropriate paradigm for which bioethics can address the framework that poses barriers to access to health care and maintenance of health through a lack of competent, knowledgeable and compassionate providers for the transgender population.Further, I pose that ascribing to improving the care to the individual transgender patient involves a call to action to overcome social ecological spheres of influence that are affecting the health of the individual and thereby the population of the transgender individuals as a whole. Through virtue ethics, the virtuous physician improves the health of the transgender individual and the character of themselves and the profession of medicine.

Improving safety through speaking up: An ethical and financial imperative.

BACKGROUND: Fostering a culture that empowers staff to speak up when concerned about the quality or safety of patient care is both an ethically1 and economically2 responsible endeavor. The Michigan Health & Hospital Association (MHA) Keystone Center has implemented the Speak-Up! Award program that acknowledges frontline health care staff for voicing their concerns and making care safer. The objective of this effort was to advance patient safety in Keystone Center member organizations through widespread, measurable culture improvement. After extensive data collection and analysis, there was a discernable improvement in culture survey results across a 2-year period coinciding with the launch and sustainment of the award program. Furthermore, in an effort to demonstrate the power of speaking up among staff, the Keystone Center applied a cost-savings framework to the types of harm avoided. Results from the cost-savings analysis suggest that each instance of speaking up by staff saves patients, families, and health care organizations an average of more than $13,000. METHODS: Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award nominations were submitted through an electronic form that collects open, closed, and Likert-type question responses, producing a data array on type and severity of harm prevented, as well as the difficulty and magnitude of the decision to speak up. All data were then coded by harm type and subsequently applied to a tailored version of the cost-savings estimation framework used in the Great Lakes Partnership for Patients Hospital Improvement and Innovation Network. Safety culture was measured through the use of a survey instrument called the Safety, Communication, Operational Reliability, and Engagement (SCORE) instrument. RESULTS: The Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award program received 416 nominations across the 2-year study period, of which 62% (n = 258) were coded as a specific harm type. Adverse drug events (n = 153), imaging errors (n = 42), and specimen errors (n = 27) were the most common harm types prevented by speaking up. After applying the cost-savings framework to these data, it is estimated that for every instance of speaking up, approximately $13,000 in total expenses were avoided, which is in line with the findings from a report on the economic impact of medical errors sponsored by the Society of Actuaries.3 Furthermore, culture survey results improved by 6% between 2015 and 2017, coinciding with the Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award program. CONCLUSIONS: The Keystone Center Speak-Up! Award has proven to be a valuable tool in recognizing staff awareness and willingness to raise concerns about quality and safety in health care. Data analysis from this program presents evidence that fostering a psychologically safe culture of speaking up yields fiscal and humanistic returns, both of which are crucial to sustainable, meaningful progress in safety and quality. However, further research is required to adequately gauge the degree to which safety culture improvement is proportional to cost savings.

Value based competition in health care's ethical drawbacks and the need for a values-driven approach.

Value Based competition in Health Care (VBHC) has become a guiding principle in the quest for high quality health care for acceptable costs. Current literature lacks substantial ethical evaluation of VBHC.In this paper we describe how a single-minded focus on VBHC may cause serious infringements upon at least four medical ethical principles: 1) it tends to neglect patients' personal values; 2) it ignores the intrinsic value of the caring act; 3) it disproportionately replaces trust in professionals with accountability, and 4) it undermines solidarity.Health care needs a next step in VBHC. We suggest a 'Values-Driven Health Care' (VDHC) approach that a) takes patients' personal values as prescriptive and guiding; b) holds a value account that encompasses health care's intrinsic (gift) values; c) is based upon intelligent accountability that supports trust in trustworthy professionals, and d) encourages patients to raise their voices for the shared good of health care.

Ethics Review of Projects (ERoP): A Conceptual Framework.

Ethical risks are routinely assessed and mitigated in research studies. The same risks can exist in program evaluations and quality improvement initiatives and yet may not be routinely and comprehensively addressed. The authors present a conceptual framework that can help organizations develop comprehensive ethics review processes for non-research knowledge-generating projects (NRKGPs). They provide strategies that can be implemented in three progressive domains and illustrate the framework's application using two examples of health organizations with existing NRKGP ethics review processes. They conclude the article by discussing some lessons learned.

Accommodating quality and service improvement research within existing ethical principles.

BACKGROUND: Quality and service improvement (QSI) research employs a broad range of methods to enhance the efficiency of healthcare delivery. QSI research differs from traditional healthcare research and poses unique ethical questions. Since QSI research aims to generate knowledge to enhance quality improvement efforts, should it be considered research for regulatory purposes? Is review by a research ethics committee required? Should healthcare providers be considered research participants? If participation in QSI research entails no more than minimal risk, is consent required? The lack of consensus on answers to these questions highlights the need for ethical guidance. MAIN BODY: Three distinct approaches to classifying QSI research in accordance with existing ethical principles and regulations can be found in the literature. In the first approach, QSI research is viewed as distinct from other types of healthcare research and does not require regulation. In the second approach, QSI research falls within regulatory guidelines but is exempt from research ethics committee review. In the third approach, QSI research is deemed to be part of the learning healthcare system and, as such, is subject to a different set of ethical principles entirely. In this paper, we critically assess each of these views. CONCLUSION: While none of these approaches is entirely satisfactory, we argue that use of the ethical principles governing research provides the best means of addressing the numerous questions posed by QSI research.

A quality improvement intervention to reduce emergency department radiography for bronchiolitis.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiolitis is one of the most common infectious diseases in children and the most frequent cause of hospitalization in infants. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that a chest X-ray (CXR) should not be routinely obtained in the diagnosis of bronchiolitis, as studies have shown that they do not affect clinical outcomes, but rather lead to overuse of pharmacological agents and a longer length of hospital stay. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether active institution of bronchiolitis practice guidelines as part of a quality improvement project decreased the use of CXRs in the Pediatric Emergency Department (ED). Secondary outcomes included a decrease in the use of unnecessary medical interventions and a shorter mean hospital length of stay. METHODS: The study was conducted at two Hadassah Medical Center Pediatric EDs. Guidelines were reviewed with the ED staff during departmental seminars by a senior pediatric pulmonologist, and posted at the physician computer stations in the ED. Prospective, post-intervention, data obtained during the study period was compared to retrospective, pre-intervention, data from the year prior to implementation of the intervention. RESULTS: Post-intervention, 37% of patients vs. 58% in the retrospective cohort had a CXR via ED referral (p < 0.001). The use of hypertonic saline and bronchodilators decreased, while there was no significant change in antibiotic or corticosteroid use. There was a decrease in hospitalizations post-intervention (70% vs. 77%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: This key intervention was successful in reinforcing the AAP guidelines, promoting greater cost-effectiveness, reducing radiation exposure, and saving valuable time and resources for the ED staff and the hospital.

What Patients Value About Reading Visit Notes: A Qualitative Inquiry of Patient Experiences With Their Health Information.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly asking for their health data. Yet, little is known about what motivates patients to engage with the electronic health record (EHR). Furthermore, quality-focused mechanisms for patients to comment about their records are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to learn more about patient experiences with reading and providing feedback on their visit notes. METHODS: We developed a patient feedback tool linked to OpenNotes as part of a pilot quality improvement initiative focused on patient engagement. Patients who had appointments with members of 2 primary care teams piloting the program between August 2014-2015 were eligible to participate. We asked patients what they liked about reading notes and about using a feedback tool and analyzed all patient reports submitted during the pilot period. Two researchers coded the qualitative responses (κ=.74). RESULTS: Patients and care partners submitted 260 reports. Among these, 98.5% (256/260) of reports indicated that the reporting tool was valuable, and 68.8% (179/260) highlighted what patients liked about reading notes and the OpenNotes patient reporting tool process. We identified 4 themes describing what patients value about note content: confirm and remember next steps, quicker access and results, positive emotions, and sharing information with care partners; and 4 themes about both patients' use of notes and the feedback tool: accuracy and correcting mistakes, partnership and engagement, bidirectional communication and enhanced education, and importance of feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and care partners who read notes and submitted feedback reported greater engagement and the desire to help clinicians improve note accuracy. Aspects of what patients like about using both notes as well as a feedback tool highlight personal, relational, and safety benefits. Future efforts to engage patients through the EHR may be guided by what patients value, offering opportunities to strengthen care partnerships between patients and clinicians.

Snakes and ladders: state interventions and the place of liberty in public health policy.

In this paper I outline and explore some problems in the way that the Nuffield Council of Bioethics' report Public Health: Ethical Issues (2007) presents its 'Intervention Ladder'. They see the metaphor of a ladder both as capturing key normative priorities and as making a real and important contribution to ethical policymaking in public health. In this paper I argue that the intervention ladder is not a useful model for thinking about policy decisions, that it is likely to produce poor decisions and that it is incompatible with the report's stated approach to relevant public health policy values.

Improvement of care for ICU patients with delirium by early screening and treatment: study protocol of iDECePTIvE study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium in critically ill patients has a strong adverse impact on prognosis. In spite of its recognized importance, however, delirium screening and treatment procedures are often not in accordance with current guidelines. This implementation study is designed to assess barriers and facilitators for guideline adherence and next to develop a multifaceted tailored implementation strategy. Effects of this strategy on guideline adherence as well as important clinical outcomes will be described. METHODS: Current practices and guideline deviations will be assessed in a prospective baseline measurement. Barriers and facilitators will be identified from a survey among intensive care health care professionals (intensivists and nurses) and focus group interviews with selected health care professionals (n=60). Findings will serve as a foundation for a tailored guideline implementation strategy. Adherence to the guideline and effects of the implementation strategies on relevant clinical outcomes will be piloted in a before-after study in six intensive care units (ICUs) in the southwest Netherlands. The primary outcomes are adherence to screening and treatment in line with the Dutch ICU delirium guideline. Secondary outcomes are process measures (e.g. attendance to training and knowledge) and clinical outcomes (e.g. incidence of delirium, hospital-mortality changes, and length of stay). Primary and secondary outcome data will be collected at four time points including at least 924 patients. Furthermore, a process evaluation will be done, including an economical evaluation. DISCUSSION: Little is known on effective implementation of delirium management in the critically ill. The proposed multifaceted implementation strategy is expected to improve process measures such as screening adherence in line with the guideline and may improve clinical outcomes, such as mortality and length of stay. This ICU Delirium in Clinical Practice Implementation Evaluation study (iDECePTIvE-study) will generate important knowledge for ICU health care providers on how to improve their clinical practice to establish optimum care for delirious patients. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT01952899.

Shifting the paradigm: using HIV surveillance data as a foundation for improving HIV care and preventing HIV infection.

CONTEXT: Reducing HIV incidence in the United States and improving health outcomes for people living with HIV hinge on improving access to highly effective treatment and overcoming barriers to continuous treatment. Using laboratory tests routinely reported for HIV surveillance to monitor individuals' receipt of HIV care and contacting them to facilitate optimal care could help achieve these objectives. Historically, surveillance-based public health intervention with individuals for HIV control has been controversial because of concerns that risks to privacy and autonomy could outweigh benefits. But with the availability of lifesaving, transmission-interrupting treatment for HIV infection, some health departments have begun surveillance-based outreach to facilitate HIV medical care. METHODS: Guided by ethics frameworks, we explored the ethical arguments for changing the uses of HIV surveillance data. To identify ethical, procedural, and strategic considerations, we reviewed the activities of health departments that are using HIV surveillance data to contact persons identified as needing assistance with initiating or returning to care. FINDINGS: Although privacy concerns surrounding the uses of HIV surveillance data still exist, there are ethical concerns associated with not using HIV surveillance to maximize the benefits from HIV medical care and treatment. Early efforts to use surveillance data to facilitate optimal HIV medical care illustrate how the ethical burdens may vary depending on the local context and the specifics of implementation. Health departments laid the foundation for these activities by engaging stakeholders to gain their trust in sharing sensitive information; establishing or strengthening legal, policy and governance infrastructure; and developing communication and follow-up protocols that protect privacy. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a shift toward using HIV surveillance to facilitate optimal HIV care. Health departments should review the considerations outlined before implementing new uses of HIV surveillance data, and they should commit to an ongoing review of activities with the objective of balancing beneficence, respect for persons, and justice.

Ethics, oversight and quality improvement initiatives.

BACKGROUND: While substantial public and scholarly attention has focused on the ethical review and oversight of quality improvement (QI) initiatives, there are no systematic data regarding the institutional mechanisms currently in place to review the conduct of QI and the ethical considerations guiding this work. METHODS/ANALYSIS: The authors recruited quality improvement practitioners (QIP) affiliated with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) '100 000 lives' campaign to participate in a web-based survey. standard statistical methods were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 132 QIPs (response rate=26%). Most respondents indicated that QI initiatives conducted with their organisation are subject to review prior to implementation. Respondents strongly agreed that ensuring minimal risk to patients, and privacy and confidentiality are relevant ethical considerations for QI initiatives conducted at their institution. A majority of respondents also agreed that assessing established practices, scientifically sound design, transparency, and the identification and minimisation of potential conflicts are relevant ethical considerations for QI initiatives. CONCLUSION: Many QI efforts seem to be getting some oversight, and those engaged in the QI initiatives endorse a range of ethical considerations that are suited to this work. Yet most of these reviews are not independent of those conducting the intervention and are not conducted by people trained in ethics. These findings should facilitate the development of a conceptual and policy framework that is informed by the realities of QI.