Everyday Clinical Ethics: Essential Skills and Educational Case Scenarios.

Bioethics conjures images of dramatic healthcare challenges, yet everyday clinical ethics issues unfold regularly. Without sufficient ethical awareness and a relevant working skillset, clinicians can feel ill-equipped to respond to the ethical dimensions of everyday care. Bioethicists were interviewed to identify the essential skills associated with everyday clinical ethics and to identify educational case scenarios to illustrate everyday clinical ethics. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of bioethicists. Bioethicists were asked: (1) What are the essential skills required for everyday clinical ethics? And (2) What are potential educational case scenarios to illustrate and teach everyday clinical ethics? Participant interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Twenty-five (25) bioethicists completed interviews (64% female; mean 14.76 years bioethics experience; 80% white). Five categories of general skills and three categories of ethics-specific skills essential for everyday clinical ethics were identified. General skills included: (1) Awareness of Core Values and Self-Reflective Capacity; (2) Perspective-Taking and Empathic Presence; (3) Communication and Relational Skills; (4) Cultural Humility and Respect; and (5) Organizational Understanding and Know-How. Ethics-specific skills included: (1) Ethical Awareness; (2) Ethical Knowledge and Literacy; and (3) Ethical Analysis and Interaction. Collectively, these skills comprise a Toolbox of Everyday Clinical Ethics Skills. Educational case scenarios were identified to promote everyday ethics. Bioethicists identified skills essential to everyday clinical ethics. Educational case scenarios were identified for the purpose of promoting proficiency in this domain. Future research could explore the impact of integrating educational case scenarios on clinicians' ethical competencies.

Research involving the recently deceased: ethics questions that must be answered.

Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria-or 'research involving the recently deceased'-can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor's legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.

The neuroethics of disorders of consciousness: a brief history of evolving ideas.

Neuroethical questions raised by recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of consciousness are rapidly expanding, increasingly relevant and yet underexplored. The aim of this thematic review is to provide a clinically applicable framework for understanding the current taxonomy of disorders of consciousness and to propose an approach to identifying and critically evaluating actionable neuroethical issues that are frequently encountered in research and clinical care for this vulnerable population. Increased awareness of these issues and clarity about opportunities for optimizing ethically responsible care in this domain are especially timely given recent surges in critically ill patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness associated with coronavirus disease 2019 around the world. We begin with an overview of the field of neuroethics: what it is, its history and evolution in the context of biomedical ethics at large. We then explore nomenclature used in disorders of consciousness, covering categories proposed by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research, including definitions of terms such as coma, the vegetative state, unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, minimally conscious state, covert consciousness and the confusional state. We discuss why these definitions matter, and why there has been such evolution in this nosology over the years, from Jennett and Plum in 1972 to the Multi-Society Task Force in 1994, the Aspen Working Group in 2002 and the 2018 American and 2020 European Disorders of Consciousness guidelines. We then move to a discussion of clinical aspects of disorders of consciousness, the natural history of recovery and ethical issues that arise within the context of caring for people with disorders of consciousness. We conclude with a discussion of key challenges associated with assessing residual consciousness in disorders of consciousness, potential solutions and future directions, including integration of crucial disability rights perspectives.

Ethical climate in contemporary paediatric intensive care.

Ethical climate (EC) has been broadly described as how well institutions respond to ethical issues. Developing a tool to study and evaluate EC that aims to achieve sustained improvements requires a contemporary framework with identified relevant drivers. An extensive literature review was performed, reviewing existing EC definitions, tools and areas where EC has been studied; ethical challenges and relevance of EC in contemporary paediatric intensive care (PIC); and relevant ethical theories. We surmised that existing EC definitions and tools designed to measure it fail to capture nuances of the PIC environment, and sought to address existing gaps by developing an EC framework for PIC founded on ethical theory. In this article, we propose a Paediatric Intensive Care Ethical Climate (PICEC) conceptual framework and four measurable domains to be captured by an assessment tool. We define PICEC as the collective felt experience of interdisciplinary team members arising from those factors that enable or constrain their ability to navigate ethical aspects of their work. PICEC both results from and is influenced by how well ethical issues are understood, identified, explored, reflected on, responded to and addressed in the workplace. PICEC encompasses four, core inter-related domains representing drivers of EC including: (1) organisational culture and leadership; (2) interdisciplinary team relationships and dynamics; (3) integrated child and family-centred care; and (4) ethics literacy. Future directions involve developing a PICEC measurement tool, with implications for benchmarking as well as guidance for, and evaluation of, targeted interventions to foster a healthy EC.

Adult ICU Triage During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Who Will Live and Who Will Die? Recommendations to Improve Survival.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients are currently overwhelming the world's healthcare systems. This article provides practical guidance to front-line physicians forced to make critical rationing decisions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Medline search for scientific literature, reviews, and guidance documents related to epidemic ICU triage including from professional bodies. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies, reviews, and guidelines were selected and reviewed by all authors and discussed by internet conference and email. DATA EXTRACTION: References and data were based on relevance and author consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: We review key challenges of resource-driven triage and data from affected ICUs. We recommend that once available resources are maximally extended, triage is justified utilizing a strategy that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of patients. A triage algorithm based on clinical estimations of the incremental survival benefit (saving the most life-years) provided by ICU care is proposed. "First come, first served" is used to choose between individuals with equal priorities and benefits. The algorithm provides practical guidance, is easy to follow, rapidly implementable and flexible. It has four prioritization categories: performance score, ASA score, number of organ failures, and predicted survival. Individual units can readily adapt the algorithm to meet local requirements for the evolving pandemic. Although the algorithm improves consistency and provides practical and psychologic support to those performing triage, the final decision remains a clinical one. Depending on country and operational circumstances, triage decisions may be made by a triage team or individual doctors. However, an experienced critical care specialist physician should be ultimately responsible for the triage decision. Cautious discharge criteria are proposed acknowledging the difficulties to facilitate the admission of queuing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Individual institutions may use this guidance to develop prospective protocols that assist the implementation of triage decisions to ensure fairness, enhance consistency, and decrease provider moral distress.

Is 'best interests' the right standard in cases like that of Charlie Gard?

Savulescu and colleagues have provided interesting insights into how the UK public view the 'best interests' of children like Charlie Gard. But is best interests the right standard for evaluating these types of cases? In the USA, both clinical decisions and legal judgments tend to follow the 'harm principle', which holds that parental choices for their children should prevail unless their decisions subject the child to avoidable harm. The case of Charlie Gard, and others like it, show how the USA and the UK have strikingly different approaches for making decisions about the treatment of severely disabled children.

Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Recommendations From an Expert Panel.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing recognition that high-quality care for patients and families in the ICU requires exemplary interprofessional collaboration and communication. One important aspect is how the ICU team makes complex decisions. However, no recommendations have been published on interprofessional shared decision-making. The aim of this project is to use systematic review and normative analysis by experts to examine existing evidence regarding interprofessional shared decision-making, describe its principles and provide ICU clinicians with recommendations regarding its implementation. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases and used normative analyses to formulate recommendations regarding interprofessional shared decision-making. STUDY SELECTION: Three authors screened titles and abstracts in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four papers assessing the effect of interprofessional shared decision-making on quality of care were identified, suggesting that interprofessional shared decision-making is associated with improved processes and outcomes. Five recommendations, largely based on expert opinion, were developed: 1) interprofessional shared decision-making is a collaborative process among clinicians that allows for shared decisions regarding important treatment questions; 2) clinicians should consider engaging in interprofessional shared decision-making to promote the most appropriate and balanced decisions; 3) clinicians and hospitals should implement strategies to foster an ICU climate oriented toward interprofessional shared decision-making; 4) clinicians implementing interprofessional shared decision-making should consider incorporating a structured approach; and 5) further studies are needed to evaluate and improve the quality of interprofessional shared decision-making in ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider an interprofessional shared decision-making model that allows for the exchange of information, deliberation, and joint attainment of important treatment decisions.

Identifying intangible assets in interprofessional healthcare organizations: feasibility of an asset inventory.

Healthcare systems increasingly use business models that focus on tangible assets such as finances and facilities. Yet intangible assets, such as values, relationships and human capital, remain critical for understanding the worth of interprofessional healthcare education and collaboration. We implemented a novel interprofessional collaborative pilot exercise to explore the feasibility and usefulness of an Asset Inventory-using KJ methodology and an appreciative inquiry perspective-to identify and better understand intangible assets and their value in interprofessional healthcare education/training organizations, for planning, and as a first step toward informing strategic decision-making. Twenty-eight faculty physicians, nurses, psychosocial and family faculty, educators, health services researchers and administrative staff participated. Participants identified intangible assets in five categories: Philosophy/Mission, Practice/Practical Strategies, Human Capital, Scholarship/Research Productivity, and Partnerships. Participants reported a greater understanding of intangible assets, and increased enthusiasm, organizational confidence, and stakeholder ownership for healthcare education programs. While this study is preliminary, the Asset Inventory may prove useful to enhance understanding of the importance of intangible assets within interprofessional healthcare education/training organizations, to inform planning and decision-making, to identify and foster interprofessional collaborative capacity across clinical and training settings, and to leverage intangible assets in today's rapidly changing business-focused healthcare systems.

Potentially inappropriate liver transplantation in the era of the "sickest first" policy - A search for the upper limits.

Liver transplantation has emerged as a highly efficient treatment for a variety of acute and chronic liver diseases. However, organ shortage is becoming an increasing problem globally, limiting the applicability of liver transplantation. In addition, potential recipients are becoming sicker, thereby increasing the risk of losing the graft during transplantation or in the initial postoperative period after liver transplantation (three months). This trend is challenging the model for end-stage liver disease allocation system, where the sickest candidates are prioritised and no delisting criteria are given. The weighting of the deontological demand for "equity", trying to save every patient, regardless of the overall utility; and "efficiency", rooted in utilitarianism, trying to save as many patients as possible and increase the overall quality of life of patients facing the same problem, has to be reconsidered. In this article we are aiming to overcome the widespread concept of futility in liver transplantation, providing a definition of potentially inappropriate liver transplantation and giving guidance on situations where it is best not to proceed with liver transplantation, to decrease the mortality rate in the first three months after transplantation. We propose "absolute" and "relative" conditions, where early post-transplant mortality is highly probable, which are not usually captured in risk scores predicting post-transplant survival. Withholding liver transplantation for listed patients in cases where liver transplant is not deemed clearly futile, but is potentially inappropriate, is a far-reaching decision. Until now, this decision had to be discussed extensively on an individual basis, applying explicit communication and conflict resolution processes, since the model for end-stage liver disease score and most international allocation systems do not include explicit delisting criteria to support a fair delisting process. More work is needed to better identify cases where transplantation is potentially inappropriate and to integrate and discuss these delisting criteria in allocation systems, following a societal debate on what we owe to all liver transplant candidates.

When a Child Dies in the PICU Despite Ongoing Life Support.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the circumstance of death in the PICU in the setting of ongoing curative or life-prolonging goals. DATA SOURCES: Multidisciplinary author group, international expert opinion, and use of current literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: We describe three common clinical scenarios when curative or life-prolonging goals of care are pursued despite a high likelihood of death. We explore the challenges to providing high-quality end-of-life care in this setting. We describe possible perspectives of families and ICU clinicians facing these circumstances to aid in our understanding of these complex deaths. Finally, we offer suggestions of how PICU clinicians might improve the care of children at the end of life in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: Merging curative interventions and optimal end-of-life care is possible, important, and can be enabled when clinicians use creativity, explore possibilities, remain open minded, and maintain flexibility in the provision of critical care medicine. When faced with real and perceived barriers in providing optimal end-of-life care, particularly when curative goals of care are prioritized despite a very poor prognosis, tensions and conflict may arise. Through an intentional exploration of self and others' perspectives, values, and goals, and working toward finding commonality in order to align with each other, conflict in end-of-life care may lessen, allowing the central focus to remain on providing optimal support for the dying child and their family.

An Ethical Claim for Providing Medical Recommendations in Pediatric Intensive Care.

The Declaration of Geneva was recently revised to emphasize patient autonomy and the importance of clinicians sharing medical knowledge. This reflects the welcome evolution of the doctor-patient relationship from one of paternalism to more informed, shared decision-making. Unfortunately, there is an increasing trend for clinicians to avoid making recommendations, instead providing a "menu" of care options from which patients and families must choose. This seems to be underpinned by the belief that it is unacceptably paternalistic to give guidance as to which course of action may be best to take. In this article, we argue that there is an ethical imperative for doctors to provide medical recommendations. This is discussed with particular emphasis on the pediatric critical care setting, where autonomy and shared decision-making are especially complex. We outline how a failure to provide clinical recommendations represents inadequate shared decision-making and erodes the doctor-patient relationship, leading to suboptimal care, paradoxically decreasing respect for autonomy. We describe an approach through which doctors can avoid paternalism without placing an undue burden of decision-making on families. We assert that patients' interests are best served by clinicians taking an active, relational role in shared decision-making, including exploration of values and giving explicit medical recommendations for care.

The Concept of Futility: Recognizing the Importance of Context.

Debate about the concept of medical futility is often polarized around two views. One is that futility is simply an acknowledgment of the limitations of modern medicine, a corollary of the fact of human mortality. The other is that futility is a judgment that is always grounded in a particular set of values, and that medical professionals have no right to impose their value judgments on patients and families who do not share their perspective. This essay argues that these dichotomous views can be reconciled by appreciating the importance of the context in which the dialogue occurs. When clinicians and families are working collaboratively in a process of shared decision-making, use of the concept of futility in the former sense can be an effective way of capturing the limits of medicine. When communication and trust have broken down and the parties are engaged in a process of conflict resolution, the latter interpretation of futility is necessary in order to demonstrate respect for those who embrace a different set of values and perspectives.

The Uncertain Future of the Determination of Brain Death.

This Viewpoint discusses the proposals that have been considered in the process of the Uniform Law Commission assessing whether the Uniform Determination of Death Act should be revised and offers pros and cons of each.

Normothermic Regional Perfusion-The Next Frontier in Organ Transplants?

This Viewpoint examines an approach known as normothermic regional perfusion, involving use of ECMO to restore perfusion to internal organs in situ before they are removed from a deceased donor.