Extending patient-centred communication to non-speaking intellectually disabled persons.

Patient-centred communication is widely regarded as a best practice in contemporary medical care, both in terms of maximising health outcomes and respecting persons. However, not all patients communicate in ways that are easily understood by clinicians and other healthcare professionals. This is especially so for patients with non-speaking intellectual disabilities. We argue that assumptions about intellectual disability-including those in diagnostic criteria, providers' implicit attitudes and master narratives of disability-negatively affect communicative approaches towards intellectually disabled patients. Non-speaking intellectually disabled patients may also be taken to lack decision-making capacity and resultingly, may be given very little role in determining their care. But, given evidence of the heterogeneous communicative practices available to non-speaking patients, efforts should be made to extend patient-centred communication to them. We offer four suggestions for doing so: (1) treating those with non-speaking intellectual disabilities as potential communicators; (2) lengthening appointment times to develop relationships necessary for communication; (3) disentangling capacity from communication in concept and in practice; and (4) recognising the bidirectional connection between supported decision-making and patient-centred communication.

Disentangling Function from Benefit: Participant Perspectives from an Early Feasibility Trial for a Novel Visual Cortical Prosthesis.

Visual cortical prostheses (VCPs) have the potential to provide artificial vision for visually impaired persons. However, the nature and utility of this form of vision is not yet fully understood. Participants in the early feasibility trial for the Orion VCP were interviewed to gain insight into their experiences using artificial vision, their motivations for participation, as well as their expectations and assessments of risks and benefits. Analyzed using principles of grounded theory and an interpretive description approach, these interviews yielded six themes, including: the irreducibility of benefit to device functionality, mixed expectations for short-term device functionality and long-term technological advancement of visual prostheses, and a broad range of risks, concerns, and fears related to trial participation. We argue that these narratives motivate a nuanced set of ethical considerations related to the complex relationship between functionality and benefit, the intersection of user experience with disability justice, and the import of expectations and indirect risks on consent.

Future directions in psychiatric neurosurgery: Proceedings of the 2022 American Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery meeting on surgical neuromodulation for psychiatric disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Despite advances in the treatment of psychiatric diseases, currently available therapies do not provide sufficient and durable relief for as many as 30-40% of patients. Neuromodulation, including deep brain stimulation (DBS), has emerged as a potential therapy for persistent disabling disease, however it has not yet gained widespread adoption. In 2016, the American Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery (ASSFN) convened a meeting with leaders in the field to discuss a roadmap for the path forward. A follow-up meeting in 2022 aimed to review the current state of the field and to identify critical barriers and milestones for progress. DESIGN: The ASSFN convened a meeting on June 3, 2022 in Atlanta, Georgia and included leaders from the fields of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry along with colleagues from industry, government, ethics, and law. The goal was to review the current state of the field, assess for advances or setbacks in the interim six years, and suggest a future path forward. The participants focused on five areas of interest: interdisciplinary engagement, regulatory pathways and trial design, disease biomarkers, ethics of psychiatric surgery, and resource allocation/prioritization. The proceedings are summarized here. CONCLUSION: The field of surgical psychiatry has made significant progress since our last expert meeting. Although weakness and threats to the development of novel surgical therapies exist, the identified strengths and opportunities promise to move the field through methodically rigorous and biologically-based approaches. The experts agree that ethics, law, patient engagement, and multidisciplinary teams will be critical to any potential growth in this area.

Two Practices to Improve Informed Consent for Intraoperative Brain Research.

As the clinical applications of neurologically implanted devices increase, so do opportunities for intracranial investigations in human patients. In some of these studies, patients participate in research during their awake brain surgery, performing additional tasks without the prospect of personal therapeutic benefit. These intraoperative studies raise persistent ethical challenges because they are conducted during a clinical intervention, in a clinical space, and often by the treating clinician. Whether intraoperative research necessitates innovative informed consent methods has become a pressing conversation. Familiar worries about inadequate participant understanding and undue influence dominate these discussions, as do calls for increasing information retention (e.g., using methods such as "teach-back") and minimizing enrollment pressures (e.g., preventing surgeons from consenting their own patients). However, efforts have yet to inspire widespread consent practices that mirror the scope of ethical concern. Focusing on awake, intraoperative intracranial research, we identify 2 underappreciated problems in approaches to informed consent. The first is epistemic: Many practices do not fully consider when and under which conditions participants are adequately informed. The second is relational: Many practices do not fully consider the effects of trust between patient-participants and surgeon-researchers. In exploring these concerns, we also raise questions about whether additional steps beyond preoperative consent may improve the process because decisions at this time are decoupled from both the experiences and vulnerability of awake brain surgery. Motivated by these considerations, we propose 2 practices: first, requiring a third-party patient advocate in initial consent and second, requiring verbal intraoperative reconsent before initiating research.

"They were already inside my head to begin with": Trust, Translational Misconception, and Intraoperative Brain Research.

Background: Patients undergoing invasive neurosurgical procedures offer researchers unique opportunities to study the brain. Deep brain stimulation patients, for example, may participate in research during the surgical implantation of the stimulator device. Although this research raises many ethical concerns, little attention has been paid to basic studies, which offer no therapeutic benefits, and the value of patient-participant perspectives.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen individuals across two studies who participated in basic intraoperative research during their deep brain stimulator surgery. Interviews explored interpretations of risks and benefits, enrollment motivations, and experiences of participating in awake brain research. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.Results: Seven themes were identified from participant narratives, including robust attitudes of trust, high valuations of basic science research, impacts of the surgical context, and mixed experiences of participation.Conclusion: We argue that these narratives raise the potential for a translational misconception and motivate intraoperative re-consent procedures.

Engagement, Exploitation, and Human Intracranial Electrophysiology Research.

Motivated by exploitation concerns, we argue for the importance of participant engagement in basic human intracranial electrophysiology research. This research takes advantage of unique neurosurgical opportunities to better understand complex systems of the human brain, but it also exposes participants to additional risks without immediate therapeutic intent. We argue that understanding participant values and incorporating their perspectives into the research process may (i) help determine whether and to what extent research practices and the resulting distributions of risks and benefits constitute exploitation and (ii) contribute to building a brain research paradigm that is genuinely responsive to participant values. More broadly, we highlight the importance of paying attention to participant interests in non-therapeutic brain research.

Living Kidney Donation Stories and Advice Shared Through a Digital Storytelling Library: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis.

Rationale & Objective: Despite the development of numerous educational interventions, there has been limited change in actual living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) rates over time. New strategies, such as the inclusion of patient stories in patient education, show promise to inspire more people to donate kidneys. This study identified the challenges faced, coping strategies used, and advice shared by transplant donors and recipients. Study Design: Qualitative thematic analysis. Setting & Participants: One hundred eighteen storytellers across the United States and Canada, including 82 living donors and 36 kidney recipients of living donor transplants who shared their stories on the Living Donation Storytelling Project (explorelivingdonation.org), an online digital storytelling platform and library. Analytical Approach: A poststorytelling survey assessed participant demographics. Two coders conducted tool-assisted (Dedoose v.8.3.35) thematic analysis on narrative storytelling videos and transcripts. Results: Storytellers were predominantly White (79/118, 66.95%), female (76/118, 64.41%), and non-Hispanic (109/118, 92.37%) with college/vocational education (50/118, 42.37%). Common themes were found related to living donation challenges for donors and recipients (eg, the fear of not being able to complete the LDKT process, of unsupportive family or rejected donation requests, and of unknown or adverse surgical outcomes and graft rejection) and recommended coping strategies (eg, seeking LDKT information, using prayer, and relying on a support network). Recipients provided advice that included being proactive and staying hopeful, whereas donors recommended seeking support, researching LDKT to comprehensively learn, and building a community of support. Limitations: Limited representation of diverse demographics. Conclusions: Although supplementary to traditional education about LDKT, digital storytelling provides a source of peer support that can enhance the experience of donors and recipients and encourage autonomy and self-management after transplant.

Ethical commitments, principles, and practices guiding intracranial neuroscientific research in humans.

Leveraging firsthand experience, BRAIN-funded investigators conducting intracranial human neuroscience research propose two fundamental ethical commitments: (1) maintaining the integrity of clinical care and (2) ensuring voluntariness. Principles, practices, and uncertainties related to these commitments are offered for future investigation.

Findings of living donation experiences shared on a digital storytelling platform: A thematic analysis.

Objectives: To identify common experiences and emotional changes shared by living donors and kidney recipients about their living donation experiences on a digital storytelling platform. Methods: 82 donors and 36 recipients submitted prompt-guided videos to the platform. Two coders analyzed transcripts for motivations, common themes, and emotions expressed. Results: Storytellers shared their stories to advocate for living donation and contribute to others facing similar challenges. Pre-surgery, recipients recalled their dialysis experiences and how they sought living donors while donors discussed their motivations and common fears. Post-surgery, recipients discussed changes in their relationship with the donor and quality life, while donors described how they benefited. Learning they needed a transplant, recipients reported feeling fear (33.3%) while donors felt sadness (48.8%). Post-transplant, recipients and donors reported feeling happiness (85.4%, 38.9%) and relief (29.3%, 22.2%). Conclusion: Online digital storytelling libraries increase access to real-life living donation experiences. Since stories are highly personal, additional living donor kidney transplant risk-benefit education is needed. Innovation: Stories can supplement traditional education and be incorporated into advocacy efforts; campaigns could capitalize upon the personal aspect of stories to gently introduce and encourage living kidney donation among the general public.

Providers and Families Weigh in on Delays to Pediatric Kidney Transplant Wait-List Activation.

INTRODUCTION: Timely access to kidney transplant is essential to reducing mortality of children with kidney disease. We examined factors affecting providers' decisions to delay waitlisting, compared perceptions of important factors of providers to families, when delaying activation, and describe recommendations to improve support for pediatric patients and families to overcome waitlisting delays. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods design, 20 providers and 20 families of pediatric patients with kidney disease, participated in interviews and surveys. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Surveys were analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Avoiding retransplantation, treatment nonadherence, poor psychological readiness for transplant, poor physical health, and greater need for social support were the key themes affecting providers' decisions to delay waitlisting. At least 70% of both providers and families felt that waitlisting should be delayed until patients and families had reliable access to transportation, mental health support, and caregivers who can better understand medical information. At least 70% of families surveyed felt it was important to delay waitlisting until they had regulated blood pressure and well-managed labs. Ethical concerns emerge that waitlisting practices may contribute to disparities in access to transplant. CONCLUSION: Providers and families agree that stabilizing the family situation and improving adherence to treatment are important reasons to delay waitlisting. However, pediatric patients facing greater disparities need easier access to psychological services, strengthened social support, access to economic resources, and stronger relationships with coordinators. Addressing patient burdens is essential for reaching more equitable listing practices.

Creating Space for Feminist Ethics in Medical School.

Alongside clinical practice, medical schools now confront mounting reasons to examine nontraditional approaches to ethics. Increasing awareness of systems of oppression and their effects on the experiences of trainees, patients, professionals, and generally on medical care, is pushing medical curriculum into an unfamiliar territory. While there is room throughout medical school to take up these concerns, ethics curricula are well-positioned to explore new pedagogical approaches. Feminist ethics has long addressed systems of oppression and broader structures of power. Some of its established concepts can offer distinct value as medical climates change and adapt in response to increased awareness of the experiences of marginalized individuals and populations. In this essay, we offer a set of concepts from feminist ethics that have a fundamental role to play in medical school curriculum: relationality, relational autonomy, and epistemic justice. Though these concepts are not exhaustive, they can be taught in tandem with the concepts that have historically grounded ethics education in medical school, such as autonomy and beneficence. Ultimately, we contend that these concepts hold particular value in ethics curriculum insofar as they diversify mainstream ethical approaches, directly address the pervasiveness of systems of oppression in medicine, and recognize the voices and concerns that may be marginalized in standard approaches.