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.

The importance of professional responsibility and fetal viability in the management of abortion.

In June 2022, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision ended the constitutional right to the professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. The removal of the constitutional right to abortion has significantly altered the practice of obstetricians and gynecologists across the US. It potentially increases risks to pregnant patients, leads to profound changes in how physicians can provide care, especially in states with strict bans or gestational limits to abortion, and has introduced personal challenges, including moral distress and injury as well as legal risks for patients and clinicians alike. The professional responsibility model is based on the ethical concept of medicine as a profession and has been influential in shaping medical ethics in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. It provides the framework for the importance of ethical and professional conduct in obstetrics and gynecology. Viability marks a stage where the fetus is a patient with a claim to access to medical care. By allowing unrestricted abortions past this stage without adequate justifications, such as those concerning the life and health of the pregnant individual, or in instances of serious fetal anomalies, the states may not be upholding the equitable ethical consideration owed to the fetus as a patient. Using the professional responsibility model, we emphasize the need for nuanced, evidence-based policies that allow abortion management prior to viability without restrictions and allow abortion after viability to protect the pregnant patient's life and health, as well as permitting abortion for serious fetal anomalies.

Curriculum and Competency Guidelines for the Advanced Care Practitioner in Infectious Disease.

Background: Changes in the health care delivery system have altered the way internal medicine (IM) is practiced, with inclusion of subspecialty advanced care practitioners (ACPs) as vital members of the health care team. Methods: ACPs are provided the clinical settings and educational resources within an academic center to become competent in recognizing and managing common and complicated infectious diseases (ID). The ID ACP will be given progressive responsibility with expectations for achievement of milestones as they develop into competent practitioners. We seek to ensure quality, cost-effective, and comprehensive patient-centered care on the ID service in the inpatient and ambulatory settings in compliance with national standards and scope of practice recommendations and regulations. Results: In recognition of the expanding role of ACPs, we developed a curriculum and guidelines in the subspecialty of ID. Conclusions: Our proposal greatly adds to the available literature for ACPs to provide the full spectrum of ID practice.

Obstetric violence is a misnomer.

The term "obstetric violence" has been used in the legislative language of several countries to protect mothers from abuse during pregnancy. Subsequently, it has been expanded to include a spectrum of obstetric procedures, such as induction of labor, episiotomy, and cesarean delivery, and has surfaced in the peer-reviewed literature. The term "obstetric violence" can be seen as quite strong and emotionally charged, which may lead to misunderstandings or misconceptions. It might be interpreted as implying a deliberate act of violence by healthcare providers when mistreatment can sometimes result from systemic issues, lack of training, or misunderstandings rather than intentional violence. "Obstetric mistreatment" is a more comprehensive term that can encompass a broader range of behaviors and actions. "Violence" generally refers to the intentional use of physical force to cause harm, injury, or damage to another person (eg, physical assault, domestic violence, street fights, or acts of terrorism), whereas "mistreatment" is a more general term and refers to the abuse, harm, or control exerted over another person (such as nonconsensual medical procedures, verbal abuse, disrespect, discrimination and stigmatization, or neglect, to name a few examples). There may be cases where unprofessional personnel may commit mistreatment and violence against pregnant patients, but as obstetrics is dedicated to the health and well-being of pregnant and fetal patients, mistreatment of obstetric patients should never be an intended component of professional obstetric care. It is necessary to move beyond the term "obstetric violence" in discourse and acknowledge and address the structural dimensions of abusive reproductive practices. Similarly, we do not use the term "psychiatric violence" for appropriately used professional procedures in psychiatry, such as electroshock therapy, or use the term "neurosurgical violence" when drilling a burr hole. There is an ongoing need to raise awareness about the potential mistreatment of obstetric patients within the context of abuse against women in general. Using the term "mistreatment in healthcare" instead of the more limited term "obstetric violence" is more appropriate and applies to all specialties when there is unprofessional abuse and mistreatment, such as biased care, neglect, emotional abuse (verbal), or physical abuse, including performing procedures that are unnecessary, unindicated, or without informed patient consent. Healthcare providers must promote unbiased, respectful, and patient-centered professional care; provide an ethical framework for all healthcare personnel; and work toward systemic change to prevent any mistreatment or abuse in our specialty.

Addressing challenges related to the professional practice of abortion post-Roe.

The landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. In June 2022, the Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision brought an end to the established professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. Rights-based reductionism and zealotry threaten the professional practice of abortion. Rights-based reductionism is generally the view that moral or ethical issues can be reduced exclusively to matters of rights. In relation to abortion, there are 2 opposing forms of rights-based reductionism, namely fetal rights reductionism, which emphasizes the rights for the fetus while disregarding the rights and autonomy of the pregnant patient, and pregnant patient rights reductionism, which supports unlimited abortion without regards for the fetus. The 2 positions are irreconcilable. This article provides historical examples of the destructive nature of zealotry, which is characterized by extreme devotion to one's beliefs and an intolerant stance to opposing viewpoints, and of the importance of enlightenment to limit zealotry. This article then explores the professional responsibility model as a clinically ethically sound approach to overcome the clashing forms of rights-based reductionism and zealotry and to address the professional practice of abortion. The professional responsibility model refers to the ethical and professional obligations that obstetricians and other healthcare providers have toward pregnant patients, fetuses, and the society at large. It provides a more balanced and nuanced approach to the abortion debate, avoiding the pitfalls of reductionism and zealotry, and allows both the rights of the woman and the obligations to pregnant and fetal patients to be considered alongside broader ethical, medical, and societal implications. Constructive and respectful dialogue is crucial in addressing diverse perspectives and finding common ground. Embracing the professional responsibility model enables professionals to manage abortion responsibly, thereby prioritizing patients' interests and navigating between absolutist viewpoints to find balanced ethical solutions.

Death Preparedness: Development and Initial Validation of the Advance Planning Preparedness Scale.

Delayed advance planning and costs of life sustaining treatments at end of life significantly contribute to the economic burden of healthcare. Clinician barriers include perceptions of inappropriate timing, lack of skills in end-of-life communication and viewing readiness as a behavior rather than a death attitude. This study developed and validated a measurement of psychological preparedness for advance directive completion. Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 543) of a 35 item pool (Cronbach α = .96) supported five sub-scales; psychological comfort (α = .87), desire to know (α = .88), thinking (α = .84), willingness (α = .82) and existential reflection (α = .79) with a possible common factor (α = .84). Results suggested significant predictors of completing directives in 30 days included discussion (OR .08, p < .001), preparedness (OR 4.08, p = .03) and uncertainty (OR 4.37, p = .02). APP = 35 is a reliable and valid measure with utility to assess readiness for completion of EOL documents.

The impact of birth settings on pregnancy outcomes in the United States.

In the United States, 98.3% of patients give birth in hospitals, 1.1% give birth at home, and 0.5% give birth in freestanding birth centers. This review investigated the impact of birth settings on birth outcomes in the United States. Presently, there are insufficient data to evaluate levels of maternal mortality and severe morbidity according to place of birth. Out-of-hospital births are associated with fewer interventions such as episiotomies, epidural anesthesia, operative deliveries, and cesarean deliveries. When compared with hospital births, there are increased rates of avoidable adverse perinatal outcomes in out-of-hospital births in the United States, both for those with and without risk factors. In one recent study, the neonatal mortality rates were significantly elevated for all planned home births: 13.66 per 10,000 live births (242/177,156; odds ratio, 4.19; 95% confidence interval, 3.62-4.84; P<.0001) vs 3.27 per 10,000 live births for in-hospital Certified Nurse-Midwife-attended births (745/2,280,044; odds ratio, 1). These differences increased further when patients were stratified by recognized risk factors such as breech presentation, multiple gestations, nulliparity, advanced maternal age, and postterm pregnancy. Causes of the increased perinatal morbidity and mortality include deliveries of patients with increased risks, absence of standardized criteria to exclude high-risk deliveries, and that most midwives attending out-of-hospital births in the United States do not meet the gold standard for midwifery regulation, the International Confederation of Midwives' Global Standards for Midwifery Education. As part of the informed consent process, pregnant patients interested in out-of-hospital births should be informed of its increased perinatal risks. Hospital births should be supported for all patients, especially those with increased risks.

Anger: an underappreciated destructive force in healthcare.

Anger is an emotional state that occurs when unexpected things happen to or around oneself and is "an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage." It is defined as "a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism," an emotion characterized by tension and hostility arising from frustration, real or imagined injury by another, or perceived injustice. It can manifest itself in behaviors designed to remove the object of the anger (e.g., determined action) or behaviors designed merely to express the emotion. For the Roman philosopher Seneca anger is not an uncontrollable, impulsive, or instinctive reaction. It is, rather, the cognitive assent that such initial reactions to the offending action or words are in fact unjustified. It is, rather, the cognitive assent that such initial reactions to the offending action or words are in fact unjustified. It seems that the year 2022 was a year when many Americans were plainly angry. "Why is everyone so angry?" the New York Times asked in the article "The Year We Lost It." We believe that Seneca is correct in that anger is unacceptable. Anger is a negative emotion that must be controlled, and Seneca provides us with the tools to avoid and destroy anger. Health care professionals will be more effective, content, and happier if they learn more about Seneca's writings about anger and implement his wisdom on anger from over 2000 years ago.

Values-Based Foundation for a U.S. Single Payer Health System Model.

A universal, single payer model for the American health system aligns with and should emanate from commonly held values contained within the country's foundational religious teachings, morals, ethics and democratic heritage. The Affordable Care Act in its attempt to create expanded health access has met with significant challenges. The conservative Supreme Court decreases the likelihood of a federal mandated single payer model. As uncertainty of the structure of the healthcare system increases, this paper supports its transformation to a single payer model. Healthcare should be considered a duty within the framework of a Kantian approach to ethics and a social good. Evidently ignoring this duty, the American health system perpetuates a healthcare underclass, with underserved portions of the population, with unequal access to quality care and persistent health status and outcome disparities. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the effect of social determinants on optimal health outcome. A health insurance system based on the nation's commonly held values has the potential to eliminate these disparities.

Professionally responsible coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination counseling of obstetrical and gynecologic patients.

The development of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines in the current and planned clinical trials is essential for the success of a public health response. This paper focuses on how physicians should implement the results of these clinical trials when counseling patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed about vaccines with government authorization for clinical use. Determining the most effective approach to counsel patients about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is challenging. We address the professionally responsible counseling of 3 groups of patients-those who are pregnant, those planning to become pregnant, and those breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed. We begin with an evidence-based account of the following 5 major challenges: the limited evidence base, the documented increased risk for severe disease among pregnant coronavirus disease 2019-infected patients, conflicting guidance from government agencies and professional associations, false information about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, and maternal mistrust and vaccine hesitancy. We subsequently provide evidence-based, ethically justified, practical guidance for meeting these challenges in the professionally responsible counseling of patients about coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. To guide the professionally responsible counseling of patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed, we explain how obstetrician-gynecologists should evaluate the current clinical information, why a recommendation of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination should be made, and how this assessment should be presented to patients during the informed consent process with the goal of empowering them to make informed decisions. We also present a proactive account of how to respond when patients refuse the recommended vaccination, including the elements of the legal obligation of informed refusal and the ethical obligation to ask patients to reconsider. During this process, the physician should be alert to vaccine hesitancy, ask patients to express their hesitation and reasons for it, and respectfully address them. In contrast to the conflicting guidance from government agencies and professional associations, evidence-based professional ethics in obstetrics and gynecology provides unequivocal and clear guidance: Physicians should recommend coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination to patients who are pregnant, planning to become pregnant, and breastfeeding or planning to breastfeed. To prevent widening of the health inequities, build trust in the health benefits of vaccination, and encourage coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine and treatment uptake, in addition to recommending coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations, physicians should engage with communities to tailor strategies to overcome mistrust and deliver evidence-based information, robust educational campaigns, and novel approaches to immunization.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. DESIGN: Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. SETTING: North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. RESULTS: Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. LIMITATION: The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. CONCLUSION: Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Evaluating moral reasoning in nursing education.

Evidence-based practice suggests the best approach to improving professionalism in practice is ethics curricula. However, recent research has demonstrated that millennium graduates do not advocate for patients or assert themselves during moral conflicts. The aim of this article is the exploration of evaluation techniques to evaluate one measurable outcome of ethics curricula: moral reasoning. A review of literature, published between 1995 and 2013, demonstrated that the moral orientations of care and justice as conceptualized by Gilligan and Kohlberg are utilized by nursing students to solve ethical dilemmas. Data obtained by means of reflective journaling, Ethics of Care Interview (ECI) and Defining Issues Test (DIT), would objectively measure the interrelated pathways of care-based and justice-based moral reasoning. In conclusion, educators have an ethical responsibility to foster students' ability to exercise sound clinical judgment, and support their professional development. It is recommended that educators design authentic assessments to demonstrate student's improvement of moral reasoning.

Death preparedness: a concept analysis.

AIM: To report analysis of the concept death preparedness in the context of end-of-life shared decisions and communication. BACKGROUND: Forty percent of older people require decision-making and communication in the final days of life. Elaborate defence mechanisms have yielded a public consciousness that no longer passively views death acceptance, but instead has a defensive orientation of preparedness. The term 'death preparedness' depicts this death attitude. DESIGN: Concept analysis. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected over 3 months in 2013. A series of searches of scholarly peer-reviewed literature published in English were conducted of multiple databases. Specific keywords included such phrases as: death acceptance, death avoidance, death rejection, death preparedness, resolution of life, breaking bad news and readiness to die. METHODS: Walker and Avant's method was chosen as a deductive method to distinguish between the defining attributes of death preparedness and its relevant attributes. RESULTS: Death preparedness involves a transition of facilitated communication with a healthcare provider that leads to awareness and/or acceptance of end of life, as evidenced by an implementation of a plan. An appraisal of attitudes towards death and one's mortality precedes the concept, followed by an improved quality of death and dignity at end of life. CONCLUSION: The concept of death preparedness in the process of dying should be the focus of research to explore areas to improve advanced directive planning and acceptance of palliation for chronic health conditions.

Effectiveness of patient-caregiver dyad discharge interventions on hospital readmissions of elderly patients with community acquired pneumonia: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of discharge planning is to reduce unplanned readmission to the hospital and improve coordination of care. As the global population ages, including family caregivers in discharge planning maybe an effective strategy to improve patient outcomes and quality of care. In the United States, hospital readmission following discharge for community acquired pneumonia is a process measure utilized to evaluate discharge planning outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to identify the effect of patient-caregiver dyad discharge learning need interventions on unexpected readmissions within thirty days of elderly patients (65 years or older) with community acquired pneumonia. METHODS: A systematic review of English language studies published and unpublished after 1991on patient and caregiver learning needs related to discharge education and unplanned hospital readmission. Studies including patients aged 65 and older experiencing discharge from a hospital setting, were the primary focus.A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed for the period of 1991-2010 to find relevant studies. A three-stage search processwas used consisting of an initial database search, scanning of reference lists, citation searching of key papers, contact with authors via the Internet and through personal communication, keyword searching of the World Wide Web. Four authors independently undertook quality assessment and data analysis using the standardized critical appraisal and data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument. Data were summarized by use of narrative methods. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies were pertinent to the review. Direct comparisons of the studies are limited due to different methods and subject participants. We found statistically significant results that caregiver education interventions impact positively on decreasing unplanned readmissions. Two randomized control trials and one quasi-experimental study were identified that addressed a multidisciplinary discharge education intervention which included caregivers of elderly pneumonia patients. Multidisciplinary care transition intervention was associated with fewer readmissions in thirty days (odds ratio = 0.55; 95% CI 0.32-0.94; odds ratio = 0.56; 95% CI 0.24-1.31; odds ratio= 0.41; 95% CI 0.28-0.75). One case control study and one quasi experimental study identified lack of documented patient or family education as independently associated with unplanned readmissions within thirty days in elderly patient populations that included chronic lung disease (odds ratio = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.2-4.5: odds ratio= 0.52; 95% CI = 0.28-0.96).Wherein, the first of these studies calculated the rate of readmission when caregiver education is omitted whilst the second calculated readmission when an educational intervention is included. However, whilst improved readmission rates with caregiver education was unlikely due to chance, due to the difficulties in isolating caregiver education as a direct intervention, issues of homogeneity limit the generalizability of this review. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the dearth of information on the caregiver's need for specific information on discharge and the need for future research.There is little evidence that education interventions aimed at caregivers are uniformly effective in decreasing pneumonia readmission rates. The evidence suggests that a structured education intervention that includes caregivers probably brings about a small reduction in unexpected readmissions within thirty days for elderly patients with community acquired pneumonia. The specific caregiver learning needs assessment remains variable and uncertain.Research has been aimed at implementation of community acquired pneumonia guidelines to improve mortality and unexpected readmissions within thirty days. However, quality of discharge teaching, a key component of coordinated care, is a strong predictor of readiness for discharge and readmission rates. There is a need for quality randomized studies evaluations of the outcomes specific to patient-caregiver dyad discharge interventions.