Becoming Inclusive: Actionable Steps to Diversify the Field of Clinical Ethics.

At the 2022 Clinical Ethics Unconference, the authors perceived a significant lack of racial and ethnic diversity, which was consistent with their experiences in other clinical ethics settings. As a result, they convened a working group to address the pervasive lack of diversity present in the field of clinical ethics and to propose strategies to increase the representation of people from racial and ethnic minority populations. This article identifies the harms associated with the lack of diversity in the healthcare setting and translates these to the field of clinical ethics. The article then proposes a framework that may be used to help diversify the field of clinical ethics. Specifically, the authors identify existing barriers to appropriate diversity, actionable steps to increase diversity, and tools the field can utilize to systematically assess its progress with respect to achieving diversity.

Simulation of "North Carolina Protocol for Allocating Scarce Inpatient Critical Care Resources in a Pandemic" in a Multi-hospital Health Care System.

BACKGROUND An integrated nonprofit health care system with 13 North Carolina medical centers conducted a time-pressured quality improvement simulation of its plan to implement the "North Carolina Protocol for Allocating Scarce Inpatient Critical Care Resources in a Pandemic" attendant to pandemic scenario planning. Simulation objectives included assessing the plan in terms of a) efficiency and effectiveness; b) comorbidity scoring validity; c) impact by race/ethnicity, gender, age, and payer status; and d) simulation participant impressions of potential impact on clinicians.METHOD The simulation scenario involved scoring 14 patients with the constraint that only 10 could be afforded critical care resources. Also included were independent scoring validation by four clinicians, structured debriefs with simulation participants and observers, and tracking patient outcomes for 30 days.RESULTS Triage scoring was identical among four triage teams. Lack of concordance in clinician comorbidity scoring did not alter patient prioritization for withdrawal of treatment in this small cohort. Protocol scoring was not correlated with resource utilization or near-term mortality.LIMITATIONS The simulation sample was small and selected when COVID-19 census was temporarily waning. No protocol for pediatric patients was tested.CONCLUSIONS The simulation yielded resource allocation concordance using comorbidity scoring by attending physicians, which significantly accelerated triage team decision-making and did not result in notable disparities by race/ethnicity, gender, or advanced age. Qualitative findings surfaced tensions in balancing de-identified data with individualized assessment and in trusting the clinical judgments of other physicians. Additional research is needed to validate the protocol's predictive value related to patient outcomes.