Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement.

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as "unrepresented." There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient's preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Identifying disincentives to ethics consultation requests among physicians, advance practice providers, and nurses: a quality improvement all staff survey at a tertiary academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Ethics consult services are well established, but often remain underutilized. Our aim was to identify the barriers and perceptions of the Ethics consult service for physicians, advance practice providers (APPs), and nurses at our urban academic medical center which might contribute to underutilization. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional single-health system, anonymous written online survey, which was developed by the UCSD Health Clinical Ethics Committee and distributed by Survey Monkey. We compare responses between physicians, APPs, and nurses using standard parametric and non-parametric statistical methods. Satisfaction with ethics consult and likelihood of calling Ethics service again were assessed using a 0-100 scale using a 5-likert response structured (0 being "not helpful at all" to 100 being "extremely helpful") and results presented using box plots and interquartile ranges (IQR). RESULTS: From January to July 2019, approximately 3800 surveys were sent to all physicians, APPs and nurses with a return rate of 5.5-10%. Although the majority of respondents had encountered an ethical dilemma (85-92.1%) only approximately half had ever requested an Ethics consult. The primary reason for physicians never having requested a consult was that they never felt the need for help (41%). For APPs the primary reasons were not knowing an Ethics consult service was available (33.3%) or not knowing how to contact Ethics (27.8%). For nurses, it was not knowing how to contact the Ethics consult service (30.8%) or not feeling the need for help (26.2%). The median satisfaction score (IQR) for Ethics consult services rated on a 0-100 scale, from physicians was 76 (29), for AAPs 89 (49), and nurses 70 (40) (p = 0.62). The median (IQR) of likelihood of consulting Ethics in the future also on a 0-100 scale was 71 (47) for physicians, 69 (45) for APPs, and 61 (45) for nurses (p = 0.79). APP's and nurses were significantly more likely than physicians to believe that the team did not act on the Ethics consult's recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results presented, we were able to identify actionable steps to better engage healthcare providers-and in particular APPs and nurses-and scale up institutional educational efforts to increase awareness of the role of the Ethics consult service at our institution. Actionable steps included implementing a system of ongoing feedback that is critical for the sustainability of the Ethics service role. We hope this project can serve as a blueprint for other hospital-based Ethics consult services to improve the quality of their programs.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colon Cancer, Version 2.2018.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer provide recommendations regarding diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Colon Cancer Panel discussions for the 2018 update of the guidelines regarding risk stratification and adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer, and treatment of BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic colorectal cancer with regimens containing vemurafenib.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma provide recommendations for the management of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal or perianal region. Primary treatment of anal cancer usually includes chemoradiation, although certain lesions can be treated with margin-negative local excision alone. Disease surveillance is recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is essential for optimal patient care.

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Rectal Cancer address diagnosis, staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, disease surveillance, and survivorship in patients with rectal cancer. This portion of the guidelines focuses on the management of localized disease, which involves careful patient selection for curative-intent treatment options that sequence multimodality therapy usually comprised of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical resection.

Colon Cancer, Version 1.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This portion of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer focuses on the use of systemic therapy in metastatic disease. Considerations for treatment selection among 32 different monotherapies and combination regimens in up to 7 lines of therapy have included treatment history, extent of disease, goals of treatment, the efficacy and toxicity profiles of the regimens, KRAS/NRAS mutational status, and patient comorbidities and preferences. Location of the primary tumor, the BRAF mutation status, and tumor microsatellite stability should also be considered in treatment decisions.

COAST (Coordinating Options for Acute Stroke Therapy): An Advance Directive for Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a worldwide problem with a limited number of approved treatments. Obtaining informed consent for acute stroke therapy is complicated by the breadth of information that must be communicated in a short period of time, the hectic nature of the emergency environment, the possible lack of understanding by the patient and/or family, and the critically time-sensitive nature of treatment for stroke. Complicating matters even further, patients are often unable to consent for themselves, placing the burden on surrogates to infer patients' wishes regarding treatment, and potentially limiting acute treatment by practitioners. INNOVATION: An advance directive for acute stroke therapy was created, entitled COAST (Coordinating Options for Acute Stroke Therapy). This clinical initiative is being piloted at a large comprehensive stroke center, including the development of the advance directive form, integration of the form with electronic medical records, training healthcare providers, and outreach to patients. CONCLUSIONS: COAST is an advance directive for stroke designed to make stroke care more efficient, optimize patients' autonomy, improve the quality of healthcare, and streamline the ethical management of complex care decisions in acute stroke. The inherent benefit of COAST is in providing patients and their families with more information regarding stroke and its treatment options, allowing them to take a more active role in their care.

Optimizing Scarce Resource Allocation During COVID-19: Rapid Creation of a Regional Health-Care Coalition and Triage Teams in San Diego County, California.

Successful management of an event where health-care needs exceed regional health-care capacity requires coordinated strategies for scarce resource allocation. Publications for rapid development, training, and coordination of regional hospital triage teams to manage the allocation of scarce resources during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. Over a period of 3 weeks, over 100 clinicians, ethicists, leaders, and public health authorities convened virtually to achieve consensus on how best to save the most lives possible and share resources. This is referred to as population-based crisis management. The rapid regionalization of 22 acute care hospitals across 4500 square miles in the midst of a pandemic with a shifting regulatory landscape was challenging, but overcome by mutual trust, transparency, and confidence in the public health authority. Because many cities are facing COVID-19 surges, we share a process for successful rapid formation of health-care care coalitions, Crisis Standard of Care, and training of Triage Teams. Incorporation of continuous process improvement and methods for communication is essential for successful implementation. Use of our regional health-care coalition communications, incident command system, and the crisis care committee helped mitigate crisis care in the San Diego and Imperial County region as COVID-19 cases surged and scarce resource collaborative decisions were required.

The Southern California Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Consortium During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

In March 2020, at the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States, the Southern California Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Consortium was formed. The consortium included physicians and coordinators from the 4 ECMO centers in San Diego County. Guidelines were created to ensure that ECMO was delivered equitably and in a resource effective manner across the county during the pandemic. A biomedical ethicist reviewed the guidelines to ensure ECMO use would provide maximal community benefit of this limited resource. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency further incorporated the guidelines into its plans for the allocation of scarce resources. The consortium held weekly video conferences to review countywide ECMO capacity (including census and staffing), share data, and discuss clinical practices and difficult cases. Equipment exchanges between ECMO centers maximized regional capacity. From March 1 to November 30, 2020, consortium participants placed 97 patients on ECMO. No eligible patients were denied ECMO due to lack of resources or capacity. The Southern California ECMO Consortium may serve as a model for other communities seeking to optimize ECMO resources during the current COVID-19 or future pandemics.

Do extratherapeutic factors affect residents' decisions to prescribe medication for erectile dysfunction in ethically challenging scenarios?

PURPOSE: To examine residents' attitudes about prescribing medication for erectile dysfunction in ethically challenging scenarios. METHOD: In 2009, the authors surveyed internal medicine and family medicine residents at the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, asking them to indicate how likely they would be to prescribe sildenafil citrate to patients in 10 hypothetical scenarios. Eight scenarios had three nested variables: sexual identity, HIV status, and risk level. Two involved adulterous behavior; these were compared with two with monogamous behavior. The survey included four attitudinal questions about medical care and societal values. RESULTS: Of 128 eligible residents, 81 (63%) responded. Respondents were more likely to prescribe sildenafil to hypothetical patients with low-risk behavior than to those with high-risk behavior (P < .001), more likely to prescribe sildenafil to patients who were HIV negative than to those who were HIV positive (P < .001), and more likely to prescribe sildenafil to monogamous patients than to patients in adulterous relationships (P < .001). Respondents who agreed that physicians are obliged to protect patients from their own risky behavior were likely to prescribe sildenafil in fewer scenarios than those who disagreed (P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Extratherapeutic factors influenced residents' decisions about prescribing medication for erectile dysfunction. Paternalistic attitude was the only attitudinal factor that affected likelihood of prescribing sildenafil. Residency programs should help trainees understand the balance between respecting patients' rights and protecting society, and between personal values and professional obligations, as well as how biases may affect patient care.