Clinical Ethics Consultations and the Necessity of NOT Meeting Expectations: I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.

Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) work in complex environments ripe with multiple types of expectations. Significantly, some are due to the perspectives of professional colleagues and the patients and families with whom CECs consult and concern how CECs can, do, or should function, thus adding to the moral complexity faced by CECs in those particular circumstances. We outline six such common expectations: Ethics Police, Ethics Equalizer, Ethics Superhero, Ethics Expediter, Ethics Healer or Ameliorator, and, finally, Ethics Expert. Framed by examples of requests for ethics consultation that illustrate each kind, along with brief descriptions, we argue that while these expectations ought to be resisted for clear and practical reasons, they also create opportunities for CECs to articulate, educate, and ultimately be responsible to the professional demands of clinical ethics work. Recognizing, acknowledging, and at times resisting those expectations thus become key activities and responsibilities in the performance of ethics consultation.

Retrieving the Moral in the Ethics of Maternal-Fetal Surgery.

Open-uterine surgery to repair spina bifida, or 'fetal surgery of open neural tube defects,' has generated questions throughout its history-and continues to do so in a variety of contexts. As clinical ethics consultants who worked (Mark J. Bliton) and trained (Virginia L. Bartlett) at Vanderbilt University-where the first successful cases of open-uterine repair of spina bifida were carried out-we lived with these questions for nearly two decades. We worked with clinicians as they were developing and offering the procedure, with researchers in refining and studying the procedure, and with pregnant women and their partners as they considered whether to undergo the procedure. From this experience in the early studies at Vanderbilt, we learned that pregnant women and their partners approach the clinical uncertainty of such a risky procedure with a curious and unique combination of practicality, self-reflection, fear, and overwhelming hope. These early experiences were a major contributing factor to the inclusion of an ethics-focused interview in the informed consent process for the Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS) trial study design.

An Actual Advance in Advance Directives: Moving from Patient Choices to Patient Voices in Advance Care Planning.

Since the concept of the living wills emerged nearly 50 years ago, there have been practical challenges in translating the concept of an advance directive (AD) into documents that are clinically useful across various healthcare settings and among different patient populations and cultures. Especially, challenging has been the reliance in most ADs on pre-selected "choices" about specific interventions which either revolve around broad themes (e.g., "prolong life / do not prolong life") or whether or not to utilize particular interventions (e.g., CPR, mechanical ventilation), both of which about most laypersons know little and, more importantly, lacking context, prove to be of limited meaningfulness. Moreover, whether by foundational frame, decade-long misunderstanding in medicine and bioethics, or different societal customs, these ADs present decision-making responsibility for initiating, continuing, or withdrawing medical interventions as a patient responsibility-creating a burden for which most patients are unprepared-and hence reducing healthcare providers' responsibility to mere technical application or customer service. At our institution, significant efforts have focused on embracing the unique and complementary responsibilities of patients (articulating their goals, values, and preferences) and physicians (using medical expertise to reach patient goals) for enabling appropriate plans of care. This includes re-structuring our AD form to more accurately represent patient's values as the frame within which physicians are responsible for determining appropriate care. Rather than specifying interventions, the AD makes patients responsible for specifying what matters to them as well as what they value in terms of function, interaction, and level of acceptable burden, thus providing clear goals for clinicians to pursue-or when goals are not reachable by available medical interventions, to acknowledge and allow for logical shifts to what may be achieved, including, in end of life contexts, care focused on respect and dignity.

Lessons learned from nurses' requests for ethics consultation: Why did they call and what did they value?

BACKGROUND: An ongoing challenge for clinical ethics consultation is learning how colleagues in other healthcare professions understand, make use of, and evaluate clinical ethics consultation services. AIM: In pursuing such knowledge as part of clinical ethics consultation service quality assessment, clinical ethics consultation services can learn important information about the issues and concerns that prompt colleagues to request ethics consultation. Such knowledge allows for greater outreach, education, and responsiveness by clinical ethics consultation services to the concerns of clinician colleagues. DESIGN: This quality assessment project explores consultation requests and follow-up questionnaire responses voluntarily submitted from nurses who requested clinical ethics consultation. We present qualitative data analyzed using content analysis and constant comparison methods to identify key concerns that prompted requests as well as common themes among nurse requestors' evaluations of what was most important in clinical ethics consultations. Participants and context: A total of 41 nurses requesting clinical ethics consultation and 15 who returned the follow-up questionnaire. Ethical considerations: Our Office of Research Compliance and Quality Improvement determined that our project was not considered human subjects research and so did not require institutional review board approval or exemption. However, efforts were made to avoid any sense of coercion and all data were de-identified prior to analysis. FINDINGS: Our analysis revealed six main categories of issues that prompted nurses' requests for ethics consultation, as well as unifying themes around nurses' experiences, advocacy, and family support while caring for patients in the intersections of patients, families, and physicians. DISCUSSION: The insights gained from analyzing nurses' requests for and responses to clinical ethics consultation may serve as a resource for clinical ethics consultation services seeking to identify, respond to, and educate regarding issues of importance to nurse colleagues and may be a resource for nursing administrators and leadership seeking to identify and address common ethical issues nurses face. CONCLUSION: Ongoing work on clinical ethics consultation service quality improvement and engagement with our nursing colleagues about their concerns prompting-and their evaluations of-clinical ethics consultation are necessary.

Discovering What Matters: Interrogating Clinician Responses to Ethics Consultation.

Against the background assumptions that (a) knowing what clinical ethics consultation represents to those with whom ethics consultants work most closely is a necessary component for being responsible in the practice of ethics consultation, and (b) the complexities of soliciting and understanding colleague evaluations require another inherent responsibility for the methods by which ethics consultations are evaluated, in this article we report our experience soliciting, analyzing, and trying to understand retrospective evaluations of our Clinical Ethics Consultation Service. These evaluations were collected through a quality assessment effort at our institution. Drawing from the qualitative elements of our survey instrument, we describe unexpected variations among the requests for ethics consultation and the retrospective reports from those colleagues making the requests. Focusing on just one aspect - the reason for request - raised several core questions about how we should evaluate those retrospective reports, what could be learned from the differences that we were now encountering, and what we could learn about the process of evaluating our practices. Working through these questions, we suggest several issues to consider in ongoing efforts to describe and evaluate clinical ethics consultation: the role of time and memory in evaluating retrospective evaluations, the importance of attending to the language of moral shift or disruption with which our colleagues describe their experiences, and how to understand the role of ethics consultation in creating 'moral space' (a la Margaret Urban Walker's conception) for colleagues to process their moral experiences.

Just a Collection of Recollections: Clinical Ethics Consultation and the Interplay of Evaluating Voices.

Despite increased attention to the question of how best to evaluate clinical ethics consultations and emphasis on external evaluation (Hastings Center Report, ASBH Quality Attestation Process), there has been little sustained focus on how we, as clinicians, make sense of and learn from our own experiences in the midst of any one consultation. Questions of how we evaluate the request for, unfolding of, and conclusion of any specific ethics consultation are often overlooked, along with the underlying question of whether it is possible to give an accurate account of clinical ethics consultants' experience as experienced by ethics consultants. Before the challenge of submitting one's accounts or case reports for review and evaluation from others (at one's local institution or in the broader field), there is an underlying challenge of understanding and evaluating our own accounts. To highlight this crucial and deeply challenging dimension of actual clinical ethics practice, we present an account of a complex consultation, explicitly constructed to engage the reader in the unfolding experience of the consultant by emphasizing the multiple perspectives unfolding within the consultant's experience. Written in script format, the three perspectives presented-prototypical clinically descriptive account; didactically reflective and self-evidentiary account often seen in journal presentations; highly self-critical reflective account emphasizing uncertainties inherent to clinical ethics practice-reflect different manners for responding to the ways actual clinical involvement in ethics consultation practice accentuates and refocuses the question of how to understand and evaluate our own work, as well as that of our colleagues.

God and genes in the caring professions: clinician and clergy perceptions of religion and genetics.

Little is known about how care providers' perceptions of religion and genetics affect interactions with patients/parishioners. This study investigates clinicians' and clergy's perceptions of and experiences with religion and genetics in their clinical and pastoral interactions. This is an exploratory qualitative study designed to elicit care providers' descriptions of experiences with religion and genetics in clinical or pastoral interactions. Thirteen focus groups were conducted with members of the caring professions: physicians, nurses, and genetics counselors (clinicians), ministers and chaplains (clergy). Preliminary analysis of qualitative data is presented here. Preliminary analysis highlights four positions in professional perceptions of the relationship between science and faith. Further, differences among professional perceptions appear to influence perceptions of needed or available resources for interactions with religion and genetics. Clinicians' and clergy's perceptions of how religion and genetics relate are not defined solely by professional affiliation. These non-role-defined perceptions may affect clinical and pastoral interactions, especially regarding resources for patients and parishioners.