Declining to Provide or Continue Requested Life-Sustaining Treatment: Experience With a Hospital Resolving Conflict Policy.

In 2015, the major critical care societies issued guidelines outlining a procedural approach to resolving intractable conflict between healthcare professionals and surrogates over life-sustaining treatments (LST). We report our experience with a resolving conflict procedure. This was a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of ethics consultations involving intractable conflict over LST. The resolving conflict process was initiated eleven times for ten patients over 2,015 ethics consultations from 2000 to 2020. In all cases, the ethics committee recommended withdrawal of the contested LST. In seven cases, the patient died or was transferred or a legal injunction was obtained before completion of the process. In the four cases in which LST was withdrawn, the time from ethics consultation to withdrawal of LST was 24.8 ± 12.2 days. Healthcare provider and surrogate were often distressed during the process, sometimes resulting in escalation of conflict and legal action. In some cases, however, surrogates appeared relieved that they did not have to make the final decision regarding LST. Challenges regarding implementation included the time needed for process completion and limited usefulness in emergent situations. Although it is feasible to implement a due process approach to conflict over LST, there are factors that limit the procedure's usefulness.

Changes in Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment in Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation.

Background: Growing numbers of acute critical illness survivors experience chronic critical illness (CCI) marked by prolonged dependence on life support, delirium, and/or disability. There is minimal recent data on treatment limitations in CCI. Objectives: To evaluate the natural history of changes in orders for life-sustaining treatment (OLST) in patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Design: Retrospective cohort study of 410 patients who received tracheostomy in an intensive care unit for prolonged respiratory failure. Results: Three hundred twenty-four patients had one OLST throughout the admission, with no limitations on prearrest life-sustaining treatment or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The 86 patients who underwent at least one change in OLST were older, had longer admissions, were more likely to be deceased at hospital discharge, and were more likely to have received specialty palliative care. Thirty percent of OLST changes occurred in the last week of admission. Conclusions: OLST occur infrequently and late in patients with CCI.

Performance of a Triage Protocol for Monoclonal Antibodies in a Mixed Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Cohort of COVID-19 Patients Treated With Intravenous Infusion or Subcutaneous Injection.

Background: Several monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been shown to reduce rates of hospitalization in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who have risk factors for severe disease. Due to capacity constraints, many health systems have been unable to provide mAbs to all eligible patients. There is little evidence regarding the performance of triage protocols for allocation or the relative effectiveness of subcutaneous administration vs intravenous infusion. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 1063 patients with COVID-19 consecutively referred for monoclonal antibody therapy in a single large academic health care system, who were prioritized for mAb therapy using an allocation protocol grouping patients by risk. Results: A triage protocol prioritizing patients who were not fully vaccinated and were at high risk of severe COVID-19 and patients who were heavily immunosuppressed performed well in terms of differentiating between groups of patients by risk of severe disease. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 hospitalization was 4.4 for the highest priority group, 8.5 for the next highest priority group, and 21.7 for the third highest priority group. There was no significant correlation between route of administration and hospitalization for symptoms related to COVID-19 (odds ratio, 1.26 in the intravenous group compared with the subcutaneous group; 95% CI, 0.56-2.8; P = .58). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that triaging mAbs for patients with COVID-19 by risk can optimize benefit in terms of reducing rates of hospitalization and that rates of hospitalization may be no different between patients treated with subcutaneous injection and patients treated with intravenous infusion.

Tracheostomy Decision-making Communication among Patients Receiving Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation.

Rationale: Patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation experience high morbidity and mortality, poor quality of life, and significant caregiving and financial burden. It is unclear what is discussed with patients and families during the tracheostomy decision-making process.Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify themes of communication related to tracheostomy decision-making in patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and to explore patient and clinical factors associated with more discussion of these themes.Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study involving adult patients in medical or cardiac intensive care units who received continuous mechanical ventilation for ≥7 days and were considered for tracheostomy placement during the same admission. We performed a consensus-driven review of documented family meeting conversations to identify characteristics and themes related to tracheostomy decision-making. A multivariate analysis was performed to investigate patient and clinical factors associated with the discussion of one or more of the identified themes.Results: Of the 241 patients included, 191 (79.2%) had at least one documented conversation regarding tracheostomy decision-making, and 148 (61.4%) required further discussions before reaching a decision. We identified the following four themes related to tracheostomy decision-making: patient's previously expressed preferences, patient's baseline condition and functional status, long-term complications, and long-term prognosis. Of the documented conversations, 45.3% addressed none of the identified themes. Patients who did not undergo tracheostomy placement were more likely to have documented discussion of one or more themes compared with those who did (74.6% vs. 41.6%). In multivariate analysis, age ≥75, female sex, significant preadmission functional dependence, home oxygen requirement, and involvement of palliative care were associated with more documented discussion of one or more themes.Conclusions: Our findings suggest inadequate information exchange regarding patient preferences and long-term prognosis during tracheostomy decision-making, especially among patients who went on to pursue tracheostomy. There is a critical need to promote effective shared decision-making to better align tracheostomy intervention with patient values and to prevent unwanted health states at the end of life.

Existing Crisis Standards of Care Triage Protocols May Not Significantly Differentiate Between Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Who Require Intensive Care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how several existing crisis standards of care triage protocols would have distinguished between patients with coronavirus disease 2019 requiring intensive care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single urban academic medical center. PATIENTS: One-hundred twenty patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who required intensive care and mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The characteristics of each patient at the time of ICU triage were used to determine how patients would have been prioritized using four crisis standards of care protocols. The vast majority of patients in the cohort would have been in the highest priority group using a triage protocol focusing on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment alone. Prioritization based on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and 1-year life expectancy would have resulted in only slightly more differentiation between patients. Prioritization based on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and 5-year life expectancy would have added significant additional differentiation depending on how priority groups were defined. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable controversy regarding the use of criteria other than prognosis for short-term survival in initial allocation of critical care resources under crisis standards of care triage protocols. To the extent that initial triage protocols would not create sufficient differentiation between patients, effectively resulting in a first-come, first-served initial allocation of resources, it is important to focus on how resources would be reallocated in the event of ongoing scarcity.

Bamlanivimab Efficacy in Older and High-BMI Outpatients With COVID-19 Selected for Treatment in a Lottery-Based Allocation Process.

BACKGROUND: Given the challenges associated with timely delivery of monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy to outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are most likely to benefit, it is critical to understand the effectiveness of such therapy outside the context of clinical trials. METHODS: This was a case-control study of 1257 adult outpatients with COVID-19, ≥65 years of age or with body mass index (BMI) ≥35, who were entered into a lottery for mAb therapy. RESULTS: Patients who were called to be offered mAb therapy had a statistically significant 44% reduction in the odds of hospitalization within 30 days of a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test compared with those who were not called (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.89; P=.01). Patients who actually received bamlanivimab had a statistically significant 68% reduction in the odds of hospitalization compared with those who did not receive bamlanivimab (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.93; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the effectiveness of bamlanivimab in reducing COVID-19-related hospitalizations in patients ≥65 or with BMI ≥35.

Intuitive vs Deliberative Approaches to Making Decisions About Life Support: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with serious illnesses are often encouraged to actively deliberate about the desirability of life support. Yet it is unknown whether deliberation changes the substance or quality of such decisions. Objective: To identify differences in decisions about life support interventions and goals of care made intuitively vs deliberatively by patients with serious illnesses. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial in which patients were asked to express treatment preferences in a series of clinical scenarios. Participants were 199 hospitalized patients aged 60 years and older with serious oncologic, cardiac, and pulmonary illnesses treated in a large, urban academic hospital from July 1, 2015, through March 15, 2016. Interventions: Patients in the intuitive group were subjected to a cognitive load and instructed to answer each question immediately based on gut instinct. Patients in the deliberative group were not cognitively loaded, were instructed to think carefully about their answers, and were required to explain their answers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Choices regarding life support (4 scenarios) and goals of care (1 scenario), concordance of these choices with patients' valuations of health states that could follow from them, and decisional uncertainty. Results: Of 199 patients, 132 (66%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 67.2 (5.0) years. Similar proportions of patients in the intuitive group (n = 97) and the deliberative group (n = 102) said they would accept a feeding tube for chronic aspiration (42% vs 44%, respectively; difference, -2%; 95% CI, -16% to 12%; P = .79), antibiotics for life-threatening infection in the event of terminal illness (39% vs 43%, respectively; difference, -4%; 95% CI, -18% to 10%; P = .57), a trial of mechanical ventilation (59% vs 60%, respectively; difference,-1%; 95% CI, -15% to 13%; P = .88), and a tracheostomy tube (37% vs 41%, respectively; difference, -4%; 95% CI, -22% to 13%; P = .64). Patients in the deliberative group were slightly more likely than patients in the intuitive group to choose a palliative approach to treatment in the event of serious illness (45% vs 30%, respectively; difference, 15%; 95% CI, 1%-29%; P = .04). Across scenarios, decisional uncertainty was similar between the 2 groups (all P > .05), and intuitive decisions were either equally or more closely aligned with patients' health state valuations than deliberative decisions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, encouraging hospitalized patients with serious illnesses to deliberate on end-of-life decisions did not change the content or improve the quality of these decisions. It is important to evaluate whether decision aids and structured communication interventions improve seriously ill patients' choices. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02487810.

Professional conduct and misconduct.

Standards of conduct in any profession reflect the shared values of that profession and define behaviors by its members that are considered either mandatory or proscribed. This chapter will provide an overview of several of the primary aspects of professional conduct and misconduct by physicians, with an emphasis on the neurologist where appropriate. It will start with an overview of the foundations of the physician-patient relationship, then cover topics including initiation of the physician-patient relationship, communication, therapeutic privilege, disclosure of medical errors, empathy and professional boundaries, barriers to care and termination of the physician-patient relationship, conflicts of interest, self-care, deception of third parties, reporting impaired colleagues, and expert testimony.

Ethical aspects of disordered states of consciousness.

The medical care of patients in disordered states of consciousness, including vegetative and minimally conscious states, raises some of the most intricate ethical questions in medicine. There is inherent ambiguity and uncertainty involved in diagnosing such patients and evaluating their level of awareness and prognosis for recovery. The care of these patients requires the weighing of competing ethical values, including respect for personal autonomy, protection of vulnerable patients, nonmaleficence, and the just use of limited medical resources. We highlight some of the major ethical issues in caring for patients with severe brain injury.

Consent issues in neurology.

The requirement that doctors obtain valid consent from patients before providing medical treatment has long been ingrained in both legal doctrine and medical ethics. We summarize the foundations of the informed consent doctrine and discuss the recent evolution in thinking about consent and medical decision making. We show how consent has evolved from physicians merely providing patients information to shared decision making between patients and physicians. We then address three specific examples of situations common in neurological practice that pose challenges in obtaining valid consent: the administration of intravenous tPA following ischemic stroke, consideration of carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis, and implementation of do-not-resuscitate orders.