Association of age with death and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy after severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Compared to younger age, older age (≥ 65 yr) is associated with worse outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). We sought to describe the association of older age with in-hospital death and aggressiveness of intervention. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult (age ≥ 16 yr) patients with severe TBI admitted to a single academic tertiary care neurotrauma centre between January 2014 and December 2015. We collected data through chart review as well as from our institutional administrative database. We provided descriptive statistics and used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the independent association of age with the primary outcome, in-hospital death. The secondary outcome was early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. RESULTS: There were 126 adult patients (median age 67 yr [Q1-Q3, 33-80 yr]) with severe TBI during the study period who met our eligibility criteria. The most common mechanism was high-velocity blunt injury (55 patients [43.6%]). The median Marshall score was 4 (Q1-Q3, 2-6), and the median Injury Severity Score was 26 (Q1-Q3, 25-35). After controlling for confounders including clinical frailty, pre-existing comorbidity, injury severity, Marshall score and neurologic examination at admission, we observed that older patients were more likely than younger patients to die in hospital (odds ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 1.65-15.78). Older patients were also more likely to experience early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy and less likely to receive invasive interventions. CONCLUSION: After controlling for confounding factors relevant to older patients, we observed that age was an important and independent predictor of in-hospital death and early withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. The mechanism by which age influences clinical decision-making independent of global and neurologic injury severity, clinical frailty and comorbidities remains unclear.

Consent models in Canadian critical care randomized controlled trials: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to describe consent models used in Canadian-led adult and pediatric intensive care unit (ICU/PICU) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our secondary objectives were to determine the consent rate of ICU/PICU RCTs that did and did not use an alternate consent model to describe consent procedures. SOURCE: Using scoping review methodology, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (from 1998 to June 2019) for trials published in English or French. We included Canadian-led RCTs that reported on the effects of an intervention on ICU/PICU patients or their families. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, abstracted data, and achieved consensus. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 48 RCTs of 17,558 patients. Included RCTs had ethics approval to use prior informed consent (43/48; 90%), deferred consent (13/48; 27%), waived consent (5/48; 10%), and verbal consent (1/48; 2%) models. Fifteen RCTs (15/48; 31%) had ethics approval to use more than one consent model. Twice as many trials used alternate consent between 2010 and 2019 (13/19) than between 2000 and 2009 (6/19). The consent rate for RCTs using only prior informed consent ranged from 54 to 91% (ICU) and 43 to 94% (PICU) and from 78 to 100% (ICU) and 74 to 87% (PICU) in trials using an alternate/hybrid consent model. CONCLUSION: Alternate consent models were used in the minority of Canadian-led ICU/PICU RCTs but have been used more frequently over the last decade. This suggests that Canadian ethics boards and research communities are becoming more accepting of alternate consent models in ICU/PICU trials.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Notre objectif principal était de décrire les modèles de consentement utilisés dans les études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) menées par des chercheurs canadiens dans les unités de soins intensifs adultes et pédiatriques (USI/USIP). Nos objectifs secondaires étaient de déterminer le taux de consentement aux ERC à l'USI et l'USIP qui utilisaient et n'utilisaient pas un autre modèle de consentement pour décrire les processus de consentement. SOURCES: À l'aide d'une méthodologie d'étude de portée, nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et CENTRAL (de 1998 à juin 2019) pour en tirer les études publiées en anglais ou en français. Nous avons inclus des ERC dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens qui rapportaient les effets d'une intervention sur les patients à l'USI/USIP ou leurs familles. Deux examinateurs indépendants ont évalué l'admissibilité, résumé les données et atteint un consensus. RéSULTATS PRINCIPAUX: Nous avons identifié 48 ERC portant sur 17 558 patients. Les ERC incluses avaient obtenu l'approbation du comité d'éthique pour l'utilisation de modèles de consentement éclairé préalable (43/48; 90 %), de consentement différé (13/48; 27 %), de renoncement au consentement (5/48; 10 %) et de consentement verbal (1/48; 2 %). Quinze ERC (15/48; 31 %) avaient reçu l'approbation du comité d'éthique pour utiliser plus d'un modèle de consentement. Deux fois plus d'études ont utilisé un autre type de consentement entre 2010 et 2019 (13/19) qu'entre 2000 et 2009 (6/19). Le taux de consentement pour les ERC utilisant uniquement un consentement éclairé préalable variait de 54 à 91 % (USI) et de 43 à 94 % (USIP), contre 78 à 100 % (USI) et 74 à 87 % (USIP) pour les études utilisant un modèle de consentement alternatif/hybride. CONCLUSION: Des modèles de consentement alternatif ont été utilisés dans une minorité des ERC en USI/USIP dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens, mais ils ont été utilisés plus fréquemment au cours de la dernière décennie. Cela donne à penser que les comités d'éthique et les communautés de recherche canadiens acceptent de plus en plus les modèles de consentement alternatifs dans les études réalisées en USI et en USIP.

Ethical challenges faced by healthcare professionals who care for suicidal patients: a scoping review.

For each one of the approximately 800,000 people who die from suicide every year, an additional twenty people attempt suicide. Many of these attempts result in hospitalization or in contact with other healthcare services. However, many personal, educational, and institutional barriers make it difficult for healthcare professionals to care for suicidal individuals. We reviewed literature that discusses suicidal patients in healthcare settings in order to highlight common ethical issues and to identify knowledge gaps. A sample was generated via PubMed using keywords "[(ethics OR *ethic*) AND suicid*] AND [English (Language) OR French (Language)]" (final N = 52), ethics content was extracted according to scoping review methodology, and categorized thematically. We identified three main areas posing ethical challenges for health professionals caring for suicidal individuals and their families. These were: (1) making clinical decisions for patients in acute care or when presented with specific circumstances; (2) issues arising from therapeutic relationships in chronic care, and (3) organizational factors. There is considerable uncertainty about how to resolve ethical issues when caring for someone who is suicidal. The stigma associated with suicide and mental illness, problems associated with risk-benefit assessments, and the fear of being held liable for malpractice should a patient die by suicide were overarching themes present across these three categories. Caring for suicidal patients is clinically and ethically challenging. The current literature highlights the complexity and range of decisions that need to be made. More attention should be paid to the difficulties faced by healthcare professionals and the development of solutions.

Media Portrayal of a Landmark Neuroscience Experiment on Free Will.

The concept of free will has been heavily debated in philosophy and the social sciences. Its alleged importance lies in its association with phenomena fundamental to our understandings of self, such as autonomy, freedom, self-control, agency, and moral responsibility. Consequently, when neuroscience research is interpreted as challenging or even invalidating this concept, a number of heated social and ethical debates surface. We undertook a content analysis of media coverage of Libet's et al.'s (Brain 106(Pt 3):623-642, 1983) landmark study, which is frequently interpreted as posing a serious challenge to the existence of free will. Media descriptions of Libet et al.'s experiment provided limited details about the original study. Overall, many media articles reported that Libet et al.'s experiments undermined the existence of free will, despite acknowledging that several methodological limitations had been identified in the literature. A propensity to attribute greater credibility than warranted to neurobiological explanations could be at stake.