Consistently Inconsistent: Does Inconsistency Really Indicate Incapacity?

While it is not explicitly included in capacity assessment tools, "consistency" has come to feature as a central concern when assessing patients' capacity. In order to determine whether inconsistency indicates incapacity, clinicians must determine the source of the inconsistency with respect to the process or content of a patient's decision-making. In this paper, we outline common types of inconsistency and analyze them against widely accepted elements of capacity. We explore the question of whether inconsistency necessarily entails a deficiency in a patient's capacity. While inconsistency may count as prima facie evidence of incapacity-enough evidence to justify a closer look-when making such determinations, it is important for clinicians to slow down, inquire about the reasons underlying the inconsistency and clearly show which of the elements of capacity the patient fails to satisfy.

Ethics Consultation in Surgical Specialties.

Multiple studies have been performed to identify the most common ethical dilemmas encountered by ethics consultation services. However, limited data exists comparing the content of ethics consultations requested by specific hospital specialties. It remains unclear whether the scope of ethical dilemmas prompting an ethics consultation differ between specialties and if there are types of ethics consultations that are more or less frequently called based on the specialty initiating the ethics consult. This study retrospectively assessed the incidence and content of ethics consultations called by surgical vs. non-surgical specialties between January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018 using our RedCap Database and information collected through the EMR via our Clinical and Translational Science Center. 548 total ethics consultations were analyzed (surgical n = 135, non-surgical n = 413). Our results demonstrate that more surgical consults originated from the ICU, as opposed to lower acuity units (45.9% vs. 14.3%, p ≤ 0.001), and surgical patients were more likely to have a DNR in place (37.5% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.002). Surgical specialties were more likely to call about issues relating to withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (p ≤ 0.001), while non-surgical specialties were more likely to call about issues related to discharge planning (p = 0.001). There appear to be morally relevant differences between consults classified as the "same" that are not entirely captured by the usual ethics consultations classification system. In conclusion, this study highlights the unique ethical issues experienced by surgical vs. non-surgical specialties. Ultimately, our data can help ethics consultation services determine how best to educate various hospital specialties to approach ethical issues commonly experienced within their field.

The role of emergency department thoracotomy in patients with cranial gunshot wounds.

BACKGROUND: Although several society guidelines exist regarding emergency department thoracotomy (EDT), there is a lack of data upon which to base guidance for multiple gunshot wound (GSW) patients whose injuries include a cranial GSW. We hypothesized that survival in these patients would be exceedingly low. METHODS: We used Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data, 2002 to 2021, and included EDTs for GSWs. We defined EDT by International Classification of Diseases codes for thoracotomy or procedures requiring one, with a location flagged as emergency department. We defined head injuries as any head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of ≥1 and severe head injuries as head AIS score of ≥4. Head injuries were "isolated" if all other body regions have an AIS score of <2. Descriptive statistics were performed. Discharge functional status was measured in five domains. RESULTS: Over 20 years in Pennsylvania, 3,546 EDTs were performed; 2,771 (78.1%) were for penetrating injuries. Most penetrating EDTs (2,003 [72.3%]) had suffered GSWs. Survival among patients with isolated head wounds (n = 25) was 0%. Survival was 5.3% for the non-head injured (n = 94 of 1,787). In patients with combined head and other injuries, survival was driven by the severity of the head wound-0% (0 of 81) with a severe head injury ( p = 0.035 vs. no severe head injury) and 4.5% (5 of 110) with a nonsevere head injury. Of the five head-injured survivors, two were fully dependent for transfer mobility, and three were partially or fully dependent for locomotion. Of 211 patients with a cranial injury who expired, 2 (0.9%) went on to organ donation. CONCLUSION: Although there is clearly no role for EDT in patients with isolated head GSWs, EDT may be considered in patients with combined injuries, as most of these patients have minor head injuries and survival is not different from the non-head injured. However, if a severe head injury is clinically apparent, even in the presence of other body cavity injuries, EDT should not be pursued. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Factors associated with limitation of care after fatal injury.

BACKGROUND: There is variability in end-of-life care of trauma patients. Many survive resuscitation but die after limitation of care (LoC). This study investigated LoC at a level I center. METHODS: Adult trauma deaths between January 2016 and June 2020 were reviewed. Patients were stratified into "full code" versus any LoC (i.e., do not resuscitate, no escalation, or withdrawal of care) and by timing to LoC. Emergency department and "brain" deaths were excluded. Unadjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards were used for analyses. Results include n (%) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included; 15 patients (8%) died full code and 158 (91%) died after LoC. Seventy-seven patients (48%) underwent incremental LoC. Age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; p = 0.0010) and female sex (OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.01-13.64; p = 0.0487) increased the odds of LoC; number of anatomic injuries (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98; p = 0.0146), chest injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score chest, >3) (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26; p = 0.0021), extremity injury (AIS score, >3) (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.64; p = 0.0170), and hospital complications equal to 1 (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.78; p = 0.0201) or ≥2 (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.87; p = 0.0319) decreased the odds of LoC. For those having LoC, final limitations were implemented in <14 days for 83% of patients; markers of injury severity (e.g., Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and AIS score) increased the odds of early LoC implementation. CONCLUSION: Most patients died after LoC was implemented in a timely fashion. Significant head injury increased the odds of LoC. The number of injuries, severe chest and extremity injuries, and increasing number of complications decreased the odds of LoC, presumably because patients died before LoCs were initiated. Understanding factors contributing to end-of-life care could help guide discussions regarding LoCs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.