An Interdisciplinary Ethics Panel Approach to End-of-Life Decision Making for Unbefriended Nursing Home Residents.

For those with advanced life-limiting illness, the optimization of quality of life and avoidance of nonbeneficial treatments at the end of life are key ethical concerns. This article evaluates the efficacy of an Interdisciplinary Ethics Panel (IEP) approach to decision making at the end of life for unbefriended nursing home residents who lack decisional capacity and have advanced life-limiting illness, through the use of a nine-step algorithm developed for this purpose. We reviewed the outcomes of three quality-of-care phased initiatives conducted in our facility, a large public nursing home in New York City, between June 2016 and February 2020, which indicated that this IEP approach promoted advance-care planning, as palliative measures were endorsed to optimize quality of life for this vulnerable population at the end of life. We also examined another quality-of-care initiative when this IEP approach was applied to end-of-life decision making for nursing home residents who had a surrogate during the COVID-19 pandemic. This application appeared to be beneficial in adding more residents to our Palliative Care Program while it improved rates of advance-care planning. When all of the above findings are considered, we believe this novel IEP approach and algorithm have the potential to be applied elsewhere after appropriate assessment.

The unique moral permissibility of uncontrolled lung donation after circulatory death.

Implementing uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) in the United States could markedly improve supply of donor lungs for patients in need of transplants. Evidence from US pilot programs suggests families support uDCDD, but only if they are asked permission for using invasive organ preservation procedures prior to initiation. However, non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs may be applicable to the overwhelming majority of potential uDCDD donors that have airway devices in place as part of standard resuscitation. We propose an ethical framework for lung uDCDD by: (a) initiating post mortem preservation without requiring prior permission to protect the opportunity for donation until an authorized party can be found; (b) using non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs; and (c) maintaining strict separation between the healthcare team and the organ preservation team. Attempting uDCDD in this way has great potential to obtain more transplantable lungs while respecting donor autonomy and family wishes, securing public support, and enabling authorized persons to affirm or cease preservation decisions without requiring evidence of prior organ donation intent. It ensures prioritization of life-saving, the opportunity to allow willing donors to donate, and respect for bodily integrity while adhering to current ethical norms.

Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records for Quality Assessment and Review of Clinical Ethics Consultation.

Evolving practice requires peer review of clinical ethics (CE) consultation for quality assessment and improvement. Many institutions have identified the chart note as the basis for this process, but to our knowledge, electronic health record (EHR) systems are not necessarily designed to easily include CE consultation notes. This article provides a framework for the inclusion of CE consultation notes into the formal EHR, describing a developed system in the Epic EHR that allows for the elaborated electronic notation of the CE chart note. The implementation of the "meaningful use" criteria for EHR, mandated by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009, requires that health professionals meet certain standards for quality, efficiency, and safety, all of which overlap with the goals of standardization, peer review, and quality improvement within CE consultation.

Victimization and Vulnerability: A Study of Incarceration, Interpersonal Trauma, and Patient-Physician Trust.

Despite the critical importance of patient-physician trust, it may be compromised among vulnerable patients, such as (1) incarcerated patients and (2) those patients who have been victims of trauma. The purpose of this study was to examine patient-physician trust among forensic and civilian psychiatric inpatient populations and to explore whether it varied based on a patient's history of incarceration and/or victimization. A trust survey (WFPTS) and a trauma instrument (LEC-5) were administered to 93 patients hospitalized on forensic and civilian psychiatric hospital units in a large, urban public hospital. Results showed no difference in patient-physician trust between incarcerated and civilian patients. Similarly, there was no effect of a history of physical assault or sexual assault on ratings of patient-physician trust. However, the hospitalized civilian and forensic patients who reported being the victim of weapons assault had significantly lower patient-physician trust scores than their counterparts.

Lesson From the New York City Out-of-Hospital Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death Program.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In 2006, the Institute of Medicine emphasized substantial potential to expand organ donation opportunities through uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD). We pilot an out-of-hospital uDCDD kidney program for New York City in partnership with communities that it was intended to benefit. We evaluate protocol process and outcomes while identifying barriers to success and means for improvement. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, participatory action research study in Manhattan from December 2010 to May 2011. Daily from 4 to 12 pm, our organ preservation unit monitored emergency medical services (EMS) frequencies for cardiac arrests occurring in private locations. After EMS providers independently ordered termination of resuscitation, organ preservation unit staff determined clinical eligibility and donor status. Authorized parties, persons authorized to make organ donation decisions, were approached about in vivo preservation. The study population included organ preservation unit staff, authorized parties, passersby, and other New York City agency personnel. Organ preservation unit staff independently documented shift activities with daily operations notes and teleconference summaries that we analyzed with mixed qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: The organ preservation unit entered 9 private locations; all the deceased lacked previous registration, although 4 met clinical screening eligibility. No kidneys were recovered. We collected 837 notes from 35 organ preservation unit staff. Despite frequently recounting protocol breaches, most responses from passersby including New York City agencies were favorable. No authorized parties were offended by preservation requests, yielding a Bayesian posterior median 98% (95% credible interval 76% to 100%). CONCLUSION: In summary, the New York City out-of-hospital uDCDD program was not feasible. There were frequent protocol breaches and confusion in determining clinical eligibility. In the small sample of authorized persons we encountered during the immediate grieving period, negative reactions were infrequent.

A Pilot Evaluation of Portfolios for Quality Attestation of Clinical Ethics Consultants.

Although clinical ethics consultation is a high-stakes endeavor with an increasing prominence in health care systems, progress in developing standards for quality is challenging. In this article, we describe the results of a pilot project utilizing portfolios as an evaluation tool. We found that this approach is feasible and resulted in a reasonably wide distribution of scores among the 23 submitted portfolios that we evaluated. We discuss limitations and implications of these results, and suggest that this is a significant step on the pathway to an eventual certification process for clinical ethics consultants.

Uncontrolled organ donation after circulatory determination of death: US policy failures and call to action.

In the United States, more than 115,000 patients are wait-listed for organ transplants despite that there are 12,000 patients each year who die or become too ill for transplantation. One reason for the organ shortage is that candidates for donation must die in the hospital, not the emergency department (ED), either from neurologic or circulatory-respiratory death under controlled circumstances. Evidence from Spain and France suggests that a substantial number of deaths from cardiac arrest may qualify for organ donation using uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) protocols that rapidly initiate organ preservation in out-of-hospital and ED settings. Despite its potential, uDCDD has been criticized by panels of experts that included neurologists, intensivists, attorneys, and ethicists who suggest that organ preservation strategies that reestablish oxygenated circulation to the brain retroactively negate previous death determination based on circulatory-respiratory criteria and hence violate the dead donor rule. In this article, we assert that in uDCDD, all efforts at saving lives are exhausted before organ donation is considered, and death is determined according to "irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions" evidenced by "persistent cessation of functions during an appropriate period of observation and/or trial of therapy." Therefore, postmortem in vivo organ preservation with chest compressions, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is legally and ethically appropriate. As frontline providers for patients presenting with unexpected cardiac arrest, emergency medicine practitioners need be included in the uDCDD debate to advocate for patients and honor the wishes of the deceased.

A rationale in support of uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death.

In the United States, when people die unexpectedly, they are usually not considered as organ donors because of the difficulty of keeping organs viable when death occurs outside the hospital, in "uncontrolled" circumstances. New protocols to permit donation in these cases have renewed the debate about how we decide whether a person has died- and whether the moral imperative to help those in need of transplant should affect the determination of death.

The art of the chart note in clinical ethics consultation and bioethics mediation: conveying information that can be understood and evaluated.

Unlike bioethics mediators who are employed by healthcare organizations as outside consultants, mediators who are embedded in an institution must be authorized to chronicle a clinical ethics consultation (CEC) or a mediation in a patient's medical chart. This is an important privilege, as the chart is a legal document. In this article I discuss this important part of a bioethics mediator's tool kit in my presentation of a case illustrating how bioethics mediation may proceed, and what this approach using both bioethics and mediation may add.

Commentary on Bergman: "yes... but".

In "Surmounting Elusive Barriers: The Case for Bioethics Mediation," Bergman argues that professionals trained in bioethics, reluctant to acquire the skills of mediation, would better be replaced by a cadre of mediators with some bioethics knowledge, to which I respond, "yes ... but."

Commentary on Fiester's "Ill-placed democracy: ethics consultations and the moral status of voting".

Autumn Fiester identifies an important element in clinical ethics consultation (CEC) that she labels, from the Greek, aporia, "state of perplexity," evidenced in CEC as ethical ambiguity. Fiester argues that the inherent difficulties of cases so characterized render them inappropriate for voting and more amenable to mediation and the search for consensus. This commentary supports Fiester's analysis and adds additional reasons for rejecting voting as a process for resolving disputes in CEC including: it distorts the analysis by empowering individual voters preferences and biases rather than focusing on the interests and wishes of the patient and family; it offers an insufficiently sensitive model for resolving the awesome, nuanced, conflicted, and ethically complex issues surrounding life and death; it marginalizes minority opinions that may have moral validity.

The clinical ethics credentialing project: preliminary notes from a pilot project to establish quality measures for ethics consultation.

The Clinical Ethics Credentialing Project (CECP) was intiated in 2007 in response to the lack of uniform standards for both the training of clinical ethics consultants, and for evaluating their work as consultants. CECP participants, all practicing clinical ethics consultants, met monthly to apply a standard evaluation instrument, the "QI tool", to their consultation notes. This paper describes, from a qualitative perspective, how participants grappled with applying standards to their work. Although the process was marked by resistance and disagreement, it was also noteworthy for the sustained engagement by participants over the year of the project, and a high level of acceptance by its conclusion.

Success of organ donation after out-of-hospital cardiac death and the barriers to its acceptance.

It is well documented that transplants save lives and improve quality of life for patients suffering from kidney, liver, and heart failure. Uncontrolled donation after cardiac death (UDCD) is an effective and ethical alternative to existing efforts towards increasing the available pool of organs. However, people who die from an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are currently being denied the opportunity to be organ donors except in those few locations where out-of-hospital UDCD programs are active, such as in Paris, Madrid, and Barcelona. Societies have the medical and moral obligation to develop UDCD programs.

Charting the future. Credentialing, privileging, quality, and evaluation in clinical ethics consultation.

Clinical ethics consultation has become an important resource, but unlike other health care disciplines, it has no accreditation or accepted curriculum for training programs, no standards for practice, and no way to measure effectiveness. The Clinical Ethics Credentialing Project was launched to pilot-test approaches to train, credential, privilege, and evaluate consultants.

Definitive care for the critically ill during a disaster: a framework for allocation of scarce resources in mass critical care: from a Task Force for Mass Critical Care summit meeting, January 26-27, 2007, Chicago, IL.

BACKGROUND: Anticipated circumstances during the next severe influenza pandemic highlight the insufficiency of staff and equipment to meet the needs of all critically ill victims. It is plausible that an entire country could face simultaneous limitations, resulting in severe shortages of critical care resources to the point where patients could no longer receive all of the care that would usually be required and expected. There may even be such resource shortfalls that some patients would not be able to access even the most basic of life-sustaining interventions. Rationing of critical care in this circumstance would be difficult, yet may be unavoidable. Without planning, the provision of care would assuredly be chaotic, inequitable, and unfair. The Task Force for Mass Critical Care Working Group met in Chicago in January 2007 to proactively suggest guidance for allocating scarce critical care resources. TASK FORCE SUGGESTIONS: In order to allocate critical care resources when systems are overwhelmed, the Task Force for Mass Critical Care Working Group suggests the following: (1) an equitable triage process utilizing the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scoring system; (2) the concept of triage by a senior clinician(s) without direct clinical obligation, and a support system to implement and manage the triage process; (3) legal and ethical constructs underpinning the allocation of scarce resources; and (4) a mechanism for rapid revision of the triage process as further disaster experiences, research, planning, and modeling come to light.

The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care.

Quality improvement (QI) activities can improve health care but must be conducted ethically. The Hastings Center convened leaders and scholars to address ethical requirements for QI and their relationship to regulations protecting human subjects of research. The group defined QI as systematic, data-guided activities designed to bring about immediate improvements in health care delivery in particular settings and concluded that QI is an intrinsic part of normal health care operations. Both clinicians and patients have an ethical responsibility to participate in QI, provided that it complies with specified ethical requirements. Most QI activities are not human subjects research and should not undergo review by an institutional review board; rather, appropriately calibrated supervision of QI activities should be part of professional supervision of clinical practice. The group formulated a framework that would use key characteristics of a project and its context to categorize it as QI, human subjects research, or both, with the potential of a customized institutional review board process for the overlap category. The group recommended a period of innovation and evaluation to refine the framework for ethical conduct of QI and to integrate that framework into clinical practice.

HIPAA and patient care: the role for professional judgment.

Federal health privacy regulations, commonly known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations, came into effect in April 2003. Many clinicians and institutions have relied on consultants and risk managers to tell them how to implement these regulations. Much of the controversy and confusion over the HIPAA regulations concern so-called incidental disclosures. Some interpretations of the privacy regulations would limit essential communication and compromise good patient care. This article analyzes misconceptions regarding what the regulations say about incidental disclosures and discusses the reasons for such misunderstandings. Many misconceptions arise from gaps in the regulations. These gaps are appropriately filled by professional judgment informed by ethical guidelines. The communication should be necessary and effective for good patient care, and the risks of a breach of confidentiality should be proportional to the likely benefit for the patient's care. The alternative for communication should be impractical. We offer specific recommendations to help physicians think through what incidental disclosures in patient care are ethically permissible and what safeguards ought to be taken. Physicians should work with risk managers and practice administrators to develop policies that promote good communication in patient care, while taking appropriate steps to protect patient privacy.