Billing for Electronic Patient-Physician Communications: An Ethical Analysis.

This review paper analyzes the ethical implications of billing patients for electronic communication with physicians through electronic health records, a practice already adopted by medical institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic. The analysis assesses how billing aligns with pillars of medical ethics which include beneficence, respect for persons, and justice. Although billing may enhance communication, improve patient care, and alleviate physician burnout, concerns arise over potential consequences on patient autonomy, trust, and health care disparities. The review delves into the intricate balance of these ethical principles by first considering the potential benefits of incentivizing concise questions and improving physician workload management through billing. By reducing messages, this approach can potentially mitigate burnout and enhance care. It also acknowledges potential drawbacks such as deterring patients because of financial constraints and eroding trust in physicians and the medical team. It emphasizes the necessity of thoroughly examining all aspects of this intricate ethical dilemma to formulate a nuanced solution that protects patient well-being while respecting physicians. We propose a middle-ground approach involving nominal and transparent billing on the basis of the question's complexity, urgency, and level of expertise required in the response. Transparent billing policies, up-front communication of costs, and potential fee waivers on the basis of socioeconomic status can address equity concerns and maintain patient trust. Striking a balance between the potential benefits and drawbacks of billing for patient questions is crucial in maintaining ethical patient-physician interactions and equitable health care provision. The analysis underscores the importance of aligning online patient-physician communication with ethical principles within the evolving digital health care landscape.

Research opportunities and ethical considerations for heart and lung xenotransplantation research: A report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop.

Xenotransplantation offers the potential to meet the critical need for heart and lung transplantation presently constrained by the current human donor organ supply. Much was learned over the past decades regarding gene editing to prevent the immune activation and inflammation that cause early organ injury, and strategies for maintenance of immunosuppression to promote longer-term xenograft survival. However, many scientific questions remain regarding further requirements for genetic modification of donor organs, appropriate contexts for xenotransplantation research (including nonhuman primates, recently deceased humans, and living human recipients), and risk of xenozoonotic disease transmission. Related ethical questions include the appropriate selection of clinical trial participants, challenges with obtaining informed consent, animal rights and welfare considerations, and cost. Research involving recently deceased humans has also emerged as a potentially novel way to understand how xeno-organs will impact the human body. Clinical xenotransplantation and research involving decedents also raise ethical questions and will require consensus regarding regulatory oversight and protocol review. These considerations and the related opportunities for xenotransplantation research were discussed in a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and are summarized in this meeting report.

Knowledge gaps in heart and lung donation after the circulatory determination of death: Report of a workshop of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

In a workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified current knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the scientific, conceptual, and ethical understanding of organ donation after the circulatory determination of death and its technologies. To minimize organ injury from warm ischemia and produce better recipient outcomes, innovative techniques to perfuse and oxygenate organs postmortem in situ, such as thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion, are being implemented in several medical centers in the US and elsewhere. These technologies have improved organ outcomes but have raised ethical and legal questions. Re-establishing donor circulation postmortem can be viewed as invalidating the condition of permanent cessation of circulation on which the earlier death determination was made and clamping arch vessels to exclude brain circulation can be viewed as inducing brain death. Alternatively, TA-NRP can be viewed as localized in-situ organ perfusion, not whole-body resuscitation, that does not invalidate death determination. Further scientific, conceptual, and ethical studies, such as those identified in this workshop, can inform and help resolve controversies raised by this practice.

Research involving the recently deceased: ethics questions that must be answered.

Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria-or 'research involving the recently deceased'-can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor's legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.

Your Family Connects: A Theory-Based Intervention to Encourage Communication about Possible Inherited Cancer Risk among Ovarian Cancer Survivors and Close Relatives.

INTRODUCTION: Encouraging family communication about possible genetic risk has become among the most important avenues for achieving the full potential of genomic discovery for primary and secondary prevention. Yet, effective family-wide risk communication (i.e., conveying genetic risk status and its meaning for other family members) remains a critical gap in the field. We aim to describe the iterative process of developing a scalable population-based communication outreach intervention, Your Family Connects, to reach ovarian cancer survivors and close relatives to communicate the potential for inherited risk and to consider genetic counseling. METHODS: Relational-level theories (e.g., interdependence theory) suggest that interventions to promote family cancer risk communication will be most effective if they consider the qualities of specific relationships and activate motives to preserve the relationship. Informed by these theories, we collaborated with 14 citizen scientists (survivors of ovarian cancer or relatives) and collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews over 12 weeks of citizen science activities in 2020. RESULTS: The citizen science findings and consideration of relational-level theories informed the content and implementation of Your Family Connects (www.yourfamilyconnects.org). CS results showed survivors favor personal contact with close relatives, but relatives were open to alternative contact methods, such as through health professionals. Recognizing the need for varied approaches based on relationship dynamics, we implemented a relative contact menu to enable survivors identify at-risk relatives and provide multiple contact options (i.e., survivor contact, health professional contact, and delayed contact). In line with relational autonomy principles, we included pros and cons for each option, assisting survivors in choosing suitable contact methods for each relative. DISCUSSION: Our developed intervention represents a novel application of relational-level theories and partnership with citizen scientists to expand genetic services reach to increase the likelihood for fair distribution of cancer genomic advances. The Your Family Connects intervention as part of a randomized trial in collaboration with the Georgia Cancer Registry compared with standard outreach.

Quality of life and decisional regret after total glossectomy with laryngectomy: A single-institution case series.

OBJECTIVES: Total glossectomy with total laryngectomy is a life-altering procedure reserved for extensive or recurrent head and neck cancer. There is minimal literature describing quality of life in these patients, partly due to high mortality rates. METHODS: Patients who had undergone a total glossectomy with laryngectomy between 2014 and 2021 at our institution, identified by chart review, were eligible. Four validated scales were used to assess quality of life and satisfaction with decision. RESULTS: Four of five survivors agreed to participate. The average scores for the Satisfaction with Decision scale and the University of Washington Quality of Life scale were 4.4/5 and 70/100, respectively, showing that patients were satisfied with their decision and quality of life. However, the average function score for the UW-QoL scale, 36.4/100, highlights negative effects of the procedure on mood, oral function, and activity. CONCLUSIONS: This case description provides a picture of patients' quality of life after total glossectomy with laryngectomy, which may be useful for counseling future patients.

Improving oncology first-in-human and Window of opportunity informed consent forms through participant feedback.

BACKGROUND: Although patient advocates have developed templates for standard consent forms, evaluating patient preferences for first in human (FIH) and window of opportunity (Window) trial consent forms is critical due to their unique risks. FIH trials are the initial use of a novel compound in study participants. In contrast, Window trials give an investigational agent over a fixed duration to treatment naïve patients in the time between diagnosis and standard of care (SOC) surgery. Our goal was to determine the patient-preferred presentation of important information in consent forms for these trials. METHODS: The study consisted of two phases: (1) analyses of oncology FIH and Window consents; (2) interviews of trial participants. FIH consent forms were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating that the study drug has not been tested in humans (FIH information); Window consents were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating the trial may delay SOC surgery (delay information). Participants were asked about their preferred placement of the information in their own trial's consent form. The location of information in the consent forms was compared to the participants' suggestions for placement. RESULTS: 34 [17 FIH; 17 Window] of 42(81%) cancer patients approached participated. 25 consents [20 FIH; 5 Window] were analyzed. 19/20 FIH consent forms included FIH information, and 4/5 Window consent forms included delay information. 19/20(95%) FIH consent forms contained FIH information in the risks section 12/17(71%) patients preferred the same. Fourteen (82%) patients wanted FIH information in the purpose, but only 5(25%) consents mentioned it there. 9/17(53%) Window patients preferred delay information to be located early in the consent, before the "Risks" section.  3/5(60%) consents did this. CONCLUSIONS: Designing consents that reflect patient preferences more accurately is essential for ethical informed consent; however, a one-size fits all approach will not accurately capture patient preferences. We found that preferences differed for FIH and Window trial consents, though for both, patients preferred key risk information early in the consent. Next steps include determining if FIH and Window consent templates improve understanding.

Evaluation of Standard-of-Care Practices Among Physicians Who Treat Other Physicians: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Ethical discussions have suggested that physicians who treat other physicians may put their physician-patients at risk of receiving non-standard-of-care treatment, which may result in worse outcomes. This phenomenon occurs when a physician treats a fellow physician as a VIP (very important person), and is therefore known as VIP syndrome. It is important to assess physicians' perceptions when treating physician-patients. Objective: To determine whether the physicians treating other physicians have attitudes toward or act in ways that could place physician-patients at risk for VIP syndrome. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-part qualitative study was conducted from December 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022. Physicians who worked at a single comprehensive cancer center with experience treating other physicians were eligible to participate. Convenience sampling was used. Emails and flyers were sent out with study information, and if interested, physicians were able to schedule an interview. Of 24 physicians responding, 3 did not have experience treating other physicians, yielding a sample of 21 (88%), which was sufficient to reach a saturation of themes. After the initial structured interview of physicians, follow-up key informant interviews were performed. Exposures: The structured interview was developed on the basis of a literature review and focused on factors that may contribute to VIP syndrome. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant responses to open-ended questions were qualitatively coded using standard multilevel semantic analysis to assess physician perceptions of treating fellow physicians. A series of Likert-scaled questions were used to identify potential contributing factors to VIP syndrome. Results: Twenty-one physicians (11 men [52%], 11 White [52%], and 15 [71%] younger than 49 years) participated. Although no physician interviewed stated that they altered their usual treatment plans, 11 (52%) agreed that their physician-patients tried to dictate their own care, and 17 (81%) believed that their physician-patients obtained privileges, such as use of medical knowledge to participate in in-depth discussions of care, ability to obtain and use the treating physicians personal contact information, and receiving faster access to care. Eleven respondents (52%) reported increased stress, and 12 (57%) experienced more pressure not to disappoint their physician-patients. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study suggest that when physicians treat other physicians, the physician-patients may obtain privileges unavailable to patients who are not physicians. Therefore, guidelines to help physicians navigate the complex relationships between themselves and their physician-patients are needed to ensure equitable outcomes between physician and nonphysician patients.

Applying citizen science to engage families affected by ovarian cancer in developing genetic service outreach strategies.

Citizen science (CS) approaches involving non-professional researchers (citizens) as research collaborators has been used infrequently in health promotion generally and specifically, in cancer prevention. Standardized CS approaches may be especially useful for developing communication interventions to encourage families to consider cancer genetic services. We engaged survivors of ovarian cancer and their close relatives as CS collaborators to collect and help interpret data to inform content for a website, printed invitation materials, and short-message reminders. We applied an implementation quality framework, and posed four research questions regarding the feasibility of CS: recruitment, data collection, data quality and evaluation of the experience. CS members were recruited through three networks: clinical sites, local and national cancer support organizations, and online ovarian cancer patient support groups. The professional research team operationalized theory-aligned CS tasks, five data collection options, question banks/scripts for creating surveys, structured interviews, online training and ongoing support from research coaches. 14 CS members agreed to the 12-week and 20-hour commitment for an honorarium. CS members opted to do both qualitative and quantitative assessments. CS members collected 261 surveys and 39 structured interviews. The largest number of surveys were collected for Task 1 (n = 102) to assess survivors' reactions to different possible options for motivating survivors to visit a study website; 77% of this data were complete (i.e., no missing values). Data collected for tasks 2, 3, 4, and 5 (e.g., assessment of survivors' and relatives' respective communication preferences) ranged from 10 to 58 surveys (80% to 84% completeness). All data were collected within the specified time frame. CSs reported 17 hours of work on average and regarded the experience positively. Our experience suggests that CS engagement is feasible, can yield comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data, and is achievable in a relatively a short timeline.

Dissemination of validated health literacy videos: A tailored approach.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we showed that chemotherapy terminology is difficult for patients to understand. Therefore, we developed short videos explaining key terminology and though proven effective, they will only be helpful if appropriately disseminated. Therefore, we aimed to determine the best dissemination method at three different healthcare settings. METHODS: With consent, we interviewed healthcare workers from (1) an academic cancer center, Winship Cancer Institute (Winship) serving higher SES patients, (2) an inner-city, safety-net hospital Grady Memorial (GMH), (3) clinics serving rural Georgia, from the Winship Community Network (Network). All interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a semantic content analysis method. Suggested dissemination plans were then implemented. RESULTS: Twenty-two Winship, 11 GMH, and 4 Network healthcare workers were interviewed. Seventy-two percent (n = 8) of the GMH and 100% (n = 4) of Network healthcare workers felt that the best place for patients to view the videos was in the clinic, compared to 27% (n = 6) of the Winship clinicians. 68% (n = 15) of the Winship clinicians stated an app would be the most useful format, compared to 27% (n = 3) at GMH, and 0% at Network sites. Video viewing increased after dissemination plans were implemented. CONCLUSION: Educational materials explaining oncology treatment terminology enhance patient understanding, yet without proper dissemination, these tools may never reach the intended patient population. Our study shows that dissemination plans need to be tailored to each individual patient population, with rural and lower SES patients needing to view the videos during clinic visits, and patients of more means viewing them using technology at home.

Therapeutic Misconception about Research Procedures: Does a Simple Information Chart Improve Understanding?

In phase I trials, some biospecimens are used both for research and patient care and some for research only. Some research participants have therapeutic misconception, assuming all biospecimens are for patient care. This study's aim was to test if a simple information chart would improve understanding of nontherapeutic research procedures. A two-arm study was conducted. Participants in the control group (C) were asked whether biospecimens were for their care, for research only, or for both. The experimental group (E) was asked the same questions but provided with a study-specific information chart labeling the purpose of each biospecimen. One hundred one patients were interviewed. In both arms, understanding that pretreatment blood draws were for patient care and research was moderate (49% for C and 62% for E). Understanding that posttreatment blood draws were for research only was significantly higher in the experimental arm (16% for C and 44% for E; p = 0.002). Providing a simple information chart may help alleviate this aspect of therapeutic misconception.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Their Work's Intersection with Clinical Ethics.

Palliative care (PC) subspecialists and clinical ethics consultants often engage in parallel work, as both function primarily as interprofessional consultancy services called upon in complex clinical scenarios and challenging circumstances. Both practices utilize active listening, goals-based communication, conflict mediation or mitigation, and values explorations as care modalities. In this set of tips created by an interprofessional team of ethicists, intensivists, a surgeon, an attorney, and pediatric and adult PC nurses and physicians, we aim to describe some paradigmatic clinical challenges for which partnership may improve collaborative, comprehensive care.

Understanding Immunotherapy Terminology: An Analysis of Provider-Patient Conversations.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy terminology is complex and can be difficult for patients to understand, threatening informed consent. The aims of this exploratory study are to determine whether patients understand immunotherapy terminology and if the provider defining the term improves patient understanding. METHODS: Conversations between oncology providers and patients discussing immunotherapy were observed(n=39), and technical terms used were noted. With consent, patients were interviewed post-conversation to assess their understanding of these terms(n=39). Comparisons of the terms were conducted using chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA where appropriate. RESULTS: 'Immunotherapy' was the most difficult for participants to understand with 48.7% (19/39) correctly defining immunotherapy. 'Immunotherapy agents' was understood 53.8% (14/26) of the time. 'Immune system' was well understood (88.5%;23/26). Providers defined immunotherapy in 97.4% of conversations. There was no correlation between having immunotherapy defined in the conversation, and the likelihood of a correct definition (p=0.487). 'Immune system' was defined in 92.3% of conversations (n=26), and defining it in the conversation was correlated with increased patient understanding (p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that patients have difficulty understanding some immunotherapy terminology. Since patient understanding of key terminology is crucial for informed consent and patient care, it is essential to implement interventions to improve understanding.

Physician Communication and Patient Understanding of Molecular Testing Terminology.

BACKGROUND: The use of molecular testing in oncology is rapidly expanding. The aim of this study was to determine how oncologists describe molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology being used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty conversations between oncologists and patients about molecular testing were observed, and the used technical terms were noted by the researcher. Patients were interviewed post-conversation to assess their understanding of the noted technical terms. A patient understanding score was calculated for each participant. Comparisons of the terms were conducted using χ2 tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA when appropriate. RESULTS: Sixty-one unique technical terms were used by oncologists, to describe seven topics. "Mutation" was a challenging term for patients to understand with 48.8% (21/43 mentions) of participants correctly defining the term. "Genetic testing" and "Gene" were understood a little more than half the time (53.3%; 8/15 and 56.4%; 22/39 respectively). "DNA" was well understood (80%; 12/15). There was no correlation between the terms being defined by the oncologist in the conversation, and the likelihood of the patient providing a correct definition. White participants were significantly more likely to understand both "mutation" and "genetic testing" than non-White participants. Forty-two percent (n = 25) of participants had an understanding score below 50%, and a higher family income was significantly correlated with a higher score. CONCLUSION: Our results show that oncologists use variable terminology to describe molecular testing, which is often not understood. Because oncologists defining the terms did not correlate with understanding, it is imperative to develop new, improved methods to explain molecular testing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of molecular testing is expanding in oncology, yet little is known about how effectively clinicians are communicating information about molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology used. The results of this study indicate that patients do not understand some of the terminology used by their clinicians and that clinicians tend to use highly variable terminology to describe molecular testing. These results highlight the need to develop and implement effective methods to explain molecular testing terminology to patients to ensure that patients have the tools to make autonomous and informed decisions about their treatment.

Videos improve patient understanding of chemotherapy terminology in a rural setting.

BACKGROUND: It is critical patients understand the terms used to describe oncology treatments; however, even basic chemotherapy terminology can be misunderstood. Rural communities tend to have especially low levels of health literacy compared with nonrural communities. To address low health literacy in rural communities, this study tested rural participants' understanding of previously developed educational chemotherapy videos that were designed for an underserved urban population. Participants were also asked for feedback to determine if the videos could be improved. METHODS: Fifty English-speaking patients who reside in counties classified as rural according to the Rural-Urban Continuum Code designations (RUCC 4-9) participated in the study. Participants were asked to define 6 chemotherapy terms before and after viewing a short, animated video explaining the term in English. Rates of correct and incorrect definitions provided by participants were also compared with previously published results from an urban cohort. RESULTS: All participants had statistically significantly higher rates of correct definitions for all 6 terms following the video intervention. Palliative chemotherapy understanding improved the most (10% correct prevideo and 76% postvideo intervention). For each video, the majority of participants (77%-92%) suggested no changes to the videos. CONCLUSION: Given the prevalence of low health literacy in rural communities, it is important to have effective educational interventions to improve the understanding of basic oncology-treatment terminology. This study found that short, educational videos, originally designed for an underserved urban population, can significantly improve understanding of commonly misunderstood chemotherapy terminology in a rural setting as well. LAY SUMMARY: Chemotherapy terminology can be confusing to patients. Understanding can be especially difficult in areas with low health literacy, such as underserved urban and rural communities. To address this concern, previously developed short, animated videos describing basic chemotherapy terminology were found to improve patient understanding in an underserved urban setting. In this study, the videos were tested in a rural population and their effectiveness was established. Participants in the rural setting were significantly more likely to correctly define all 6 tested terms after watching the videos. Educational tools for high-need populations are essential to ensure patients can understand the treatment they receive.

Reassessing the measurement and presence of therapeutic misconception in a phase 1 setting.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic misconception (TM) refers to research subjects' failure to distinguish the goals of clinical research from standard personal care. TM has traditionally been determined by questioning the patient about the research study's purpose. Recent research, however, has questioned whether TM is as prevalent as reported due to discrepancies between patient/researcher interpretations of TM questions. The authors have created an interview tool receptive to these advancements to more accurately determine the prevalence of TM. METHODS: Patients were questioned about the trial's purpose as follows: 1) "Is the trial mostly intending to help research and gain knowledge?," 2) "Is it mostly intending to help you as a person?," or 3) "Don't know." Participants were then asked what they thought this question was asking: A) "What my own intentions are for participating," B) "What the official purpose of the research study is," or C) "Not sure." A patient exhibited TM by answering that the official trial purpose was to help him or her. RESULTS: Patients (n = 98) had a mean age of 60 years, were mostly White (64%), had a combined family annual income ≥$60,000 (61%), and 49% had a college degree. Twelve of 98 patients (12%) definitely exhibited TM. This was much lower than the author's original finding of 68% in a similar cohort. Twenty-four of 98 patients (24.5%) were unclear about what one or both questions were asking and could not be categorized. CONCLUSIONS: Previously, a patient was thought to have TM if they answered that the purpose of the trial was to benefit to him or her. An additional query about how patients interpreted that question revealed only 12% definitely had TM. LAY SUMMARY: Therapeutic misconception (TM) refers to research subjects' failure to distinguish the goals of clinical research from standard personal care. TM signals a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of clinical research, threatening valid informed consent to participate in clinical trials. TM has traditionally been determined by questioning patients about their research study's purpose. Recent research, however, has questioned whether TM is as prevalent due to discrepancies between patient/researcher interpretations of TM questions. By developing an interview-tool receptive to these advancements, we report a lower TM estimate in the phase 1 setting (12%) than we found previously in a similar cohort (68%).

Evaluating the impact of the Patient Preference Assessment Tool on clinicians' recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Many groups recommend assessment of patient preferences particularly for patients with advanced, incurable cancer. We, therefore, developed the Patient Preference Assessment Tool (PPAT) to ascertain patient preferences in order to inform clinician recommendations and improve shared decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the PPAT's impact on clinicians' strength of recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials. METHODS: Clinicians recorded the strength of their recommendation on a Likert scale before viewing the patient's PPAT. After viewing the PPAT, the clinician discussed the clinical trial with the patient and then recorded the strength of recommendation again. If there was a change, the clinician noted the reason for the change: clinical findings or patient preference. Clinicians were interviewed about the acceptability of the tool. Our threshold for determining if a change in recommendation due to the PPAT was significant was 20%, given the multiple factors influencing a clinician's recommendation. We also noted the type of phase I conversation observed based on classifications defined in prior work-priming, treatment-options, trial logistics, consent. RESULTS: N = 29. The strength of the clinicians' recommendations changed due to patient preferences in 7 of 29 (24%) of the conversations. The seven changes due to preferences were all in the 23 treatment-options conversations, for an impact rate of 30% in this type of conversation. 82% of clinicians found the PPAT useful. CONCLUSION: The PPAT was impactful in an academic setting, exceeding our 20% impact threshold. This tool helps achieve the important goal of incorporating patient preferences into shared decision-making about clinical trials.