The Ladder of Inference as a tool to reduce implicit bias in pediatric clinical practice.

Implicit bias in healthcare professionals is a widespread phenomenon that leads to worse healthcare outcomes for marginalized patient populations. One tool that can help providers identify when biases are impacting the clinical care they are providing and enable them to take corrective action in real time is the "Ladder of Inference" (LOI). The LOI is an instrument that elucidates the process by which we take in information about another person, filter that data through our own interests, needs, perspectives and biases, and then use it to draw conclusions about the individual. These conclusions are often profoundly inaccurate, yet we then act upon them. Thus, we propose the LOI as an "implicit bias detection tool" for neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) clinical practice. We demonstrate on two common NICU cases how utilizing the LOI can uncover mechanisms by which positive and negative feedback loops secondary to unregulated implicit bias lead to a stepwise increase or decrease in the quality of care. As the cases demonstrate, the subtle differences in individual steps up the ladder can lead to care differences of a large magnitude in either direction, hugely positive or detrimentally negative. This shift in the quality of care, then, may contribute to the significant neonatal outcome disparities in infants from minoritized groups. Using the LOI as a practical tool, we demonstrate how it becomes possible to detect one's own implicit biases and thus to consciously monitor the inferences we are making about patients and their families in order to counteract them.

Ethical Issues in Using Behavior Contracts to Manage the "Difficult" Patient and Family.

Long used as a tool for medical compliance and adhering to treatment plans, behavior contracts have made their way into the in-patient healthcare setting as a way to manage the "difficult" patient and family. The use of this tool is even being adopted by healthcare ethics consultants (HECs) in US hospitals as part of their work in navigating conflict at the bedside. Anecdotal evidence of their increasing popularity among clinical ethicists, for example, can be found at professional bioethics meetings and conversations and idea-sharing among practitioners on HEC social media. While there are a handful of papers gesturing toward a bioethical critique of behavior contracts of various types, the use of behavior contracts in the context of interpersonal conflict has not been vetted by bioethicists to determine their ethical legitimacy or efficacy. In this paper, we highlight a set of ethical concerns that we believe must be addressed before continuing or widespread implementation of behavior contracts to manage the "difficult" patient or family.

Reducing Moral Distress by Teaching Healthcare Providers the Concepts of Values Pluralism and Values Imposition.

AbstractThere is a clear need for interventions that reduce moral distress among healthcare providers (HCPs), given the high prevalence of moral distress and the far-ranging negative consequences it has for them. Healthcare ethics consultants are frequently called upon to manage moral distress, especially among nursing staff. Recently, researchers have both broadened the definition of moral distress and demarcated subcategories of the phenomenon with the intent of creating more targeted and effective interventions. One of the most frequently occurring subcategories of moral distress in this new taxonomy has been labeled "moral-constraint distress," though scholars have argued that not all constraints on HCPs' moral agency are inappropriate given the often-competing healthcare values of patients, families, and clinical staff. To attempt to reduce the instances of moral distress in cases in which the constraints on HCPs' moral agency are justified, we propose an intervention that focuses on shifting the HCPs' "frame of reference" on moral-constraint distress, teaching HCPs how to distinguish unjustified and justified constraints on their moral agency. The anchors of this blueprint for reducing moral-constraint distress are the philosophical concepts of "values pluralism" and "values imposition." The rationale for this intervention is that, in situations where the constraint on moral agency is justified but the experience of moral distress could nevertheless be severe, the emphasis needs to be on helping the HCP to "think differently" rather than "act differently."

Developing Skills in the HEC Communication Competency: Diagnostic Listening and the ADEPT Technique.

Proficient listening has been viewed as a critical skill in HEC (healthcare ethics consultation) from the inception of the practice, and it is included in the field's set of core competencies that practitioners need to master to become a certified healthcare ethics consultant (HEC-C). Despite its centrality to the work of HEC, practitioners and trainees receive little or no formal training in the craft of listening, and there are few available resources that ethics consultants and trainees can access to enhance their listening skills. This dearth of training in the skill of listening belies the enormous challenge of listening proficiently. Although many clinical ethics researchers refer to the need for "active listening" in HEC, the term is employed without description or instruction. In this article, I argue that a more helpful depiction of the requisite skill is conveyed by the term "diagnostic listening." After describing the strategy of diagnostic listening, I introduce a novel technique for honing the listening skills needed for HEC: the ADEPT Model. The ADEPT Model is a tool that can begin to fill the training gap for this important skill.

Values Imposition and Ethical Pluralism: An Argument Against Standardized Ethical Directives for Healthcare Ethics Consultants.

In the article "An Argument for Standardized Ethical Directives for Secular Healthcare Services," Abram L. Brummett and Jamie C. Watson argue that, parallel to the directives of the Roman Catholic Church, secular healthcare ethics consultants (HECs) need substantive standardized ethical guidelines (what they call SEGs) that would constitute a best practice across all HECs in the U.S. Brummett and Watson believe that the absence of such directives constitutes an important deficit in clinical ethics consultation (CEC) that needs to be rectified in order for consultation to achieve the professionalism and universality necessary for legitimacy. This is a bold argument worthy of consideration, perhaps most because it challenges the field to engage in a self-assessment about its current and future directions against the backdrop of both the concerning data on national CEC and the current intense values polarization in the U.S. As part of assessment, I will argue in this essay that such a consensus document is not only impossible in our current national climate, but undesirable given the way that it would impose liberal clinical ethics values on an extremely values-pluralistic populace and exacerbate the deep divisions that many of us fear could be our national undoing.

The "Ladder of Inference" as a Conflict Management Tool: Working with the "Difficult" Patient or Family in Healthcare Ethics Consultations.

Conflict resolution is a core component of healthcare ethics consultation (HEC) and proficiency in this skill set is recognized by the national bioethics organization and its HEC certification process. Difficult interpersonal interactions between the clinical team and patients or their families are often inexorably connected to the normative disputes that are the catalyst for the consult. Ethics consultants are often required to navigate challenging dynamics that have become entrenched and work with patient-provider or family-provider relationships that have already broken down. The first step in conflict resolution is diagnosing the source of the conflict. Because so many interpersonal and normative conflicts rest on misunderstanding and mischaracterization, the diagnosis of the problem requires untangling the actual positions and perspectives of the conflicting parties from the fallacious assumptions made about the parties' respective positions and views. Developed in management science, the Ladder of Inference (LOI) is a diagnostic tool for assisting stakeholders in re-examining the process they used to form beliefs about others involved in the conflict. The LOI is a device that detects errors in reasoning, including implicit racial bias, that lead to false judgments and counterproductive responses to those judgments. The LOI is an instrument that can be used by ethics consultants to help resolve contentious bedside conflicts, but the LOI can also be employed as a teaching tool used by healthcare ethics consultants in training the clinical staff in how to avoid such conflicts in the first place.

From "Longshot" to "Fantasy": Obligations to Pediatric Patients and Families When Last-Ditch Medical Efforts Fail.

Clinicians at quaternary centers see part of their mission as providing hope when others cannot. They tend to see sicker patients with more complex disease processes. Part of this mission is offering longshot treatment modalities that are unlikely to achieve their stated goal, but conceivably could. When patients embark on such a treatment plan, it may fail. Often treatment toward an initial goal continues beyond the point at which such a goal is feasible. We explore the progression of care from longshot to fantasy using two pediatric cases. This progression may be differentiated into four distinct stages of care related to the potential of achieving the initial goals of care. Physicians are often ill prepared for the progression of treatments from a longshot hope to an unfeasible and, therefore, typically unjustified intervention. We present a structured approach to guide clinicians at referral institutions where these situations may be common. The transition of care from "longshot" to "fantasy" is an inherent part of quaternary care for the sickest of patients that has been underexplored. Physicians are often poorly equipped to approach that transition. We advocate this approach to the shift from longshot to fantasy with the belief that such a structured method will have multiple benefits, including: reduced suffering for the patient; decreased emotional burden on patient and family; decreased provider moral distress; increased likelihood of seeking high quality palliative care earlier; and provision of honest and straightforward information to patients and their families.

Sterilization as last resort in women with intellectual disabilities: protection or disservice?

The legacy of the eugenics movement in the United States, including the involuntary sterilization of those deemed unfit to reproduce, has created a profound backlash against sterilization among certain populations. Particularly in treating women with intellectual disabilities, the field of obstetrics and gynecology has widely adopted an antisterilization stance. When treating women with intellectual disabilities, sterilization is generally considered a last resort. This essay revisits the issue of sterilization in women with intellectual disabilities, asking whether the field's stance of sterilization as a last resort is best viewed as a protection of this vulnerable population or one that actually does significant harm. We use a hypothetical but realistic patient case to examine the potential risks and benefits of sterilization. After reviewing the arguments against sterilization as a first-line treatment, we defend the controversial position that, in some cases, sterilization should be presented as an equally legitimate choice to reversible contraceptives.

Neglected ends: clinical ethics consultation and the prospects for closure.

Clinical ethics consultations (CECs) are sometimes deemed complete at the moment when the consultants make a recommendation. In CECs that involve actual ethical conflict, this view of a consult's endpoint runs the risk of overemphasizing the conflict's resolution at the expense of the consult's process, which can have deleterious effects on the various parties in the conflict. This overly narrow focus on reaching a decision or recommendation in consults that involve profound moral disagreement can result in two types of adverse, lingering sequelae: moral distress or negative moral emotions. The problem, succinctly named, is that such consults have insufficient "closure" for patients, families, and providers. To promote closure, and avoid the ills of moral distress and the moral emotions, I argue that CECs need to prioritize assisted conversation between the different stakeholders in these conflicts, what is often referred to as "bioethics mediation."

Addressing Consent Issues in Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death.

Given the widening gap between the number of individuals on transplant waiting lists and the availability of donated organs, as well as the recent plateau in donations based on neurological criteria (i.e., brain death), there has been a growing interest in expanding donation after circulatory determination of death. While the prevalence of this form of organ donation continues to increase, many thorny ethical issues remain, often creating moral distress in both clinicians and families. In this article, we address one of these issues, namely, the challenges surrounding patient and surrogate informed consent for donation after circulatory determination of death. First we discuss several general concerns regarding consent related to this form of organ donation, and then we address additional issues that are unique to three different patient categories: adult patients with medical decision-making capacity or potential capacity, adult patients who lack capacity, and pediatric patients.

Weaponizing principles: clinical ethics consultations & the plight of the morally vulnerable.

Internationally, there is an on-going dialogue about how to professionalize ethics consultation services (ECSs). Despite these efforts, one aspect of ECS-competence that has received scant attention is the liability of failing to adequately capture all of the relevant moral considerations in an ethics conflict. This failure carries a high price for the least powerful stakeholders in the dispute. When an ECS does not possess a sophisticated dexterity at translating what stakeholders say in a conflict into ethical concepts or principles, it runs the risk of naming one side's claims as morally legitimate and decrying the other's as merely self-serving. The result of this failure is that one side in a dispute is granted significantly more moral weight and authority than the other. The remedy to this problem is that ECSs learn how to expand the diagnostic moral lens they employ in clinical ethics conflicts.

Contentious Conversations: Using Mediation Techniques in Difficult Clinical Ethics Consultations.

Mediators utilize a wide range of skills in the process of facilitating dialogue and resolving conflicts. Among the most useful techniques for clinical ethics consultants (CECs)-and surely the least discussed-are those employed in acrimonious, hostile conversations between stakeholders. In the context of clinical ethics disputes or other bedside conflicts, good mediation skills can reverse the negative interactions that have prevented the creation of workable treatment plans or ethical consensus. This essay lays out the central framework mediators use in distinguishing positions from interests and describes a set of strategies for managing contentious ethics consultations or working with "difficult" patients, families, or patient-careprovider interactions.

Teaching and Learning the Techniques of Conflict Resolution for Challenging Ethics Consultations.

Professional mediators have long possessed a skill set that is uniquely suited to facilitation of difficult conversations between and among individuals in emotionally charged situations. This skill set has increasingly been recognized as invaluable to the work of clinical ethics consultants as they navigate conflicts involving families, surrogates, and providers. Given widespread acknowledgment that communication difficulties lie at the root of many clinical ethics conflicts, mediation offers techniques to enhance communication between conflicting parties. This special section of The Journal of Clinical Ethics focuses on core aspects of the mediation process designed for effective management of clinical conflict emanating from communication breakdowns, highly charged value conflicts, and instances of perceived disrespect.

Repaving the Road of Good Intentions: LGBT Health Care and the Queer Bioethical Lens.

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." And in the recent burst of clinical attention being paid to the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients, good intentions abound. But while this long-overdue interest in LGBT health care aims to highlight important gaps and bring into relief serious issues in health care delivery for LGBT persons, such work can inadvertently reinforce both the marginalization of sexual minorities and the cultural norms related to sexuality, gender identity, and the conventional family. To ensure that positive outcomes for LGBT patients are inextricably paired with those noble intentions, we advocate for a new, queer bioethics-a methodology of scholastic, bioethical, and critical scrutiny that not only addresses the needs of LGBT persons in health care settings but also considers the perspectives, histories, and feelings of such parties.

Who's at the table? Moral obligations to equal-priority surrogates in clinical ethics consultations.

Existing state surrogate decision-maker laws are fragmented and inconsistent and fail to ensure that all eligible decision makers of the same surrogate priority class are included in the healthcare decisions made for an incapacitated loved one. In this article, we explore three categories of harm that result from failing to include all surrogates of equal priority in a patient's healthcare decision, namely harms to the patient, harms to the excluded surrogate, and harms to the family. Given these harms, we argue that clinical ethicists have a moral obligation to take reasonable steps to include all surrogate decision makers of equal priority in the healthcare decision-making process for patients without a designated healthcare proxy.

Communicating findings: a justification and framework for direct radiologic disclosure to patients.

OBJECTIVE: Radiologists' delivery of imaging results to patients remains controversial. One model of communication suggests limiting disclosure to normal results. We argue that disclosing radiologic findings to patients is justified in all categories of results. CONCLUSION: Once a doctor-patient relationship has been established, we claim that it is morally justifiable for radiologists to communicate findings directly to their patients. The practice guidelines that we advocate employ a sliding scale based on the diagnostic confidence of imaging results.

Incidental findings and the need for a revised informed consent process.

OBJECTIVE: The current clinical practice with regard to incidental findings (IFs) is suboptimal in the domains of informed consent and patient education. We argue that a more robust informed consent process is needed to enable patients to anticipate incidentalomas and to correctly perceive the associated risks. CONCLUSION: Given that IFs are very common in high-resolution imaging, patients should be provided information about the possibility of an IF as part of radiologic informed consent. The frequency of IFs, the very high rates of false-positives among incidentalomas, the very low rates of malignancies among incidentalomas, and the potential financial and emotional costs to both patients and the health care system of monitoring IFs necessitate a thorough informed consent process. Further, because radiologists are the most knowledgeable professionals regarding the nature of IFs, they should be the specialists who conduct the informed consent discussion with patients.