A Gap in Mission: The Disparate Missions of Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals.

Objective: The social contract mandates that in return for the government-funded labor of residents and fellows, the medical profession trains, to the best of its ability, the physicians of our future. This contract obligates graduate medical education (GME) to utilize all available information to create an optimal learning environment for its trainees. Business research has determined that a clearly defined mission statement is associated with improved employee engagement, retention, and wellness. Given that GME trainees are situated at the intersection of at least two institutions, each with its own separate mission, trainees could potentially be hindered by incongruent missions in the learning environment. The literature on mission statements has analyzed medical schools and hospitals separately; however, investigations comparing the statements of these affiliated institutions have not been conducted. Therefore, we plan to compare the content and assess the consistency of mission statements from affiliated medical schools and hospitals to determine if incongruencies exist. Methods: In 2023, the mission statements from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) medical schools and affiliated teaching hospitals (n = 163) were aggregated from their public websites. The content of each mission statement was thematically analyzed to assess variation. Results: According to content analysis of the mission statements from 163 AAMC medical school members and affiliated teaching hospitals, less than half of their top priorities are shared by their affiliated hospitals (45%). Additionally, themes of diversity, religion, and global care were found to be contrasting priorities between affiliated institutions. Conclusion: Given the precedence within the business and the observed discrepancies in mission, further research is needed to determine whether collaborating medical schools and hospitals could provide a more favorable graduate training environment by uniting their priorities and identifying shared goals.

The Surgeon as a Professional: Changes and Challenges Over Time.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we seek to use a case-study discussion of a woman seeking treatment guidance for an elective, complex surgical ailment to discuss how professionalism has changed within the past century and where it may be headed with specific regard for the medical profession and surgeons. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, professionals were those who possessed a certain knowledge base, committed to an ╗altruistic mission through serving the general populace while adhering to certain performance standards that were established by other members of the field. In the 20th century, we saw certain abuses from those who held positions of power within medicine including the Tuskegee Syphilis and Nuremberg trials calling into question the trust the public has placed within professional actors. With many competing opinions and forces shaping the medical profession, including the prominent dissemination of health care information making access to both true and misinformation more rampant than ever before, discussion about the evolving nature of the medical profession is important. METHODS/RESULTS: We conducted a literature review to investigate the historical context of the physician-patient relationship with regard for the surgeon. Our work suggests that the core structure of a professional is a foundation rooted in moral excellence that merits trust from the client. In medicine, further efforts at healing from prior abuses necessitates an emphasis on ethical principles, as well as communicating this commitment not only to the patient but also to the society at large. We emphasize the importance of these changes through a case-based discussion.

A Case of Nonsyndromic Craniosynostosis in an Infant Child of Jehovah's Witness Parents: Is Surgical Correction Appropriate?

An infant with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis is brought to clinic by his Jehovah's Witness parents to discuss treatment. Five potential courses of action are discussed in the context of biomedical ethics principles. The potential conflict between parents' autonomy to make decisions for their child and the surgeon's ethical duty of beneficence to the patient is explored.

Addressing Futility: A Practical Approach.

Limiting or withdrawing nonbeneficial medical care is considered ethically responsible throughout most of critical care and medical ethics literature. Practically, however, setting limits to treatment is often challenging. We review the literature to identify best practices for using the definition of futility as an anchoring concept to aid the ethical practice of ICU clinicians. DATA SOURCES: Source data were obtained from a PubMed literature review. STUDY SELECTION: English language articles were chosen based on relevance to medical futility ethics, end-of-life care in the ICU, or communication and conflict mitigation strategies. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent evaluation of selected articles for recurrent content themes as relevant to our clinical case were compared among authors and based on consensus, quantitative and qualitative data from these sources were referenced directly. DATA SYNTHESIS: When life-sustaining treatment is unlikely to achieve a meaningful benefit such as symptom improvement, continued care may be discordant with the patient's goals. Institutional and cultural norms, unconscious biases, and difficulty with navigating conflicts all influence how un(comfortable) clinicians feel in setting limits to futile care. Defining futility in light of the patient's goals and values, focusing on outcomes rather than interventions, and being proactive in communication with families are the staples of medically meaningful critical care. Palliative measures should be framed affirmatively, and clinicians should be transparent about the limits of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians have an ethical obligation not to provide futile care. To practice accordingly, we must clearly understand the nature and forms of futility. Armed with this understanding, our discussions with family and surrogates in the ICU should fundamentally comprise 1) eliciting the patient's values and goals, 2) communicating which interventions serve those values and goals and which do not, and 3) offering only those interventions whose likely outcomes are in line with said values and goals.

When Doctors Disagree: A Case-Based Discussion of Pro-Active Ethics.

This article addresses a common yet rarely discussed aspect of hospital care-a pro-active approach to ethical dilemmas. Potential ethical conflicts often present warning signs to clinicians, analogous to the warning lights on a car's dashboard. Using a recent case study, a commonly encountered clinical decision-a conflict about whether to terminally extubate a critically ill patient versus whether to offer a tracheostomy-we describe a pro-active approach to ethical conflicts and outline three learning objectives: (1) the need for a robust understanding of the term "futility," (2) the need for an appreciation the various and often conflicting interpretations of "improved/improving," and (3) the need to understand the challenges of surrogate decision making.

Critical Ethics: How to Balance Patient Autonomy With Fairness When Patients Refuse Coronavirus Disease 2019 Testing.

OBJECTIVES: A cornerstone of our healthcare system's response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is widespread testing to facilitate both isolation and early treatment. When patients refuse to undergo coronavirus disease testing, they compromise not only just their own health but also the health of those around them. The primary objective of our review is to identify the most ethical way a given healthcare system may respond to a patient's refusal to undergo coronavirus disease 2019 testing. DATA SOURCES: We apply a systematic approach to a true clinical case scenario to evaluate the ethical merits of four plausible responses to a patient's refusal to undergo coronavirus disease testing. Although our clinical case is anecdotal, it is representative of our experience at our University Tertiary Care Center. DATA EXTRACTION: Each plausible response in the case is rigorously analyzed by examining relevant stakeholders, facts, norms, and ethical weight both with respect to individuals' rights and to the interests of public health. We use the "So Far No Objections" method as the ethical approach of choice because it has been widely used in the Ethics Modules of the Surgical Council on Resident Education Curriculum of the American College of Surgeons. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two ethically viable options may be tailored to individual circumstances depending on the severity of the patient's condition. Although unstable patients must be assumed to be coronavirus disease positive and treated accordingly even in the absence of a test, stable patients who refuse testing may rightfully be asked to seek care elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient autonomy is a fundamental principle of our society's medical ethic, during a pandemic we must, in the interest of vulnerable and critically ill patients, draw certain limits to obliging the preferences of noncritically ill patients with decisional capacity.

Oral and maxillofacial surgeons' assessment of the role of Pernkopf's atlas in surgical practice.

BACKGROUND: The use of the Pernkopf atlas of human anatomy in surgery presents ethical challenges due to the author's association with the Nazi regime and the potential depiction of victims of this regime. The atlas was of particular utility to two surgical specialties: nerve surgeons and oral and maxillofacial surgeons. The representation of peripheral nerves and complex head and neck anatomy is probably unequaled in any other atlas of anatomy. While the ethical implications of the use of Pernkopf's atlas among nerve surgeons have been previously assessed, this study focuses on the volume dedicated to detailed images of head and neck dissections, and the ethical implications of using this atlas by oral and maxillofacial surgeons. OBJECTIVE: To (1) assess the role of the Pernkopf atlas in oral and maxillofacial surgeons' current practice and (2) determine whether a proposal of four conditions would provide ethical guidance for use in surgery and education. METHODS: Members of three American oral and maxillofacial surgical societies (ACOMS, ASTMJS, AAOMS) were surveyed and 181 responses collected. The survey introduced the historical origin of the Pernkopf atlas, and respondents were asked whether they would use the atlas under specific conditions that could be a recommendation for its ethical handling. An anatomical plate comparison between Netter's and Pernkopf's atlases was performed to compare accuracy and surgical utility. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of respondents were aware of the Pernkopf atlas, and 9% of respondents were currently using it. Amongst those aware of the historical facts, 42% were comfortable using the atlas, 33% uncomfortable, and 25% undecided. The four conditions involving disclosure, bioethical and religious considerations, and remembrance led to 75% of those "uncomfortable" and "undecided" becoming "comfortable" with use. CONCLUSIONS: Amid recent developments and controversy regarding the Pernkopf atlas, a proposal detailing conditions for an ethical approach may provide guidance in surgical planning and education. Furthermore, this approach has implications for the future preparation and publication of anatomical atlases and their use.

Ethics of Codes and Codes of Ethics: When Is It Ethical to Provide Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to provide a paradigm when it is ethical to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Hospitals around the nation are enacting systems to limit CPR in caring for COVID+ patients for a variety of legitimate reasons and based on concepts of medical futility and allocation of scarce resources. No ethical framework, however, has been proposed as a standard to guide care in this crucial matter. METHODS: Our analysis begins with definitions of ethically relevant terms. We then cycle an illustrative clinical vignette through the mathematically permissible possibilities to account for all conceivable scenarios. Scenarios with ethical tension are examined. RESULTS: Patients have the negative right to refuse care including CPR, but they do not have the positive right to demand it. Our detailed ethical analysis and recommendations support CPR if and only if 1) CPR is judged medically beneficial, and in line with the patient's and values and goals, 2) allocations or scarce resources follow a just and transparent triage system, and 3) providers are protected from contracting the disease. CONCLUSIONS: CPR is an intervention like any other, with attendant risks and benefits and with responsibility for the utilization of limited resources. Our ethical analysis advocates for a systematic approach to codes that respects the important ethical considerations in caring for the critically ill and facilitates patient-centered, evidence-based, and fair treatment to all.

Surgeon as Double Agent: Perception of Conflicting Expectations of Patient Care and Stewardship of Resources.

BACKGROUND: Physicians must satisfy 2 competing expectations: advocate for patients and serve as stewards of resources. No guidelines exist for surgeons on resolving this conflict. We surveyed surgeons' perceptions about these dual obligations. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted our study at 2 large university hospitals in 3 distinct steps, each built on the previous one. First, we surveyed 40 surgery residents and medical students using a 10-question assessment tool as the quantitative portion of our analysis. Next, a focus group of attending surgeons was surveyed to identify themes for the qualitative part of our study. Based on these, 5 attending surgeons from varying specialties were interviewed in a semi-structured format. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test for quantitative analysis and content analysis to report our qualitative findings. RESULTS: Students and residents did not think that they faced resource allocation decisions; however, they observed attending surgeons face them regularly (p = 0.0003). Attending surgeons from various specialties agreed that they thought they were obligated to both provide excellent care and serve as a steward of resources. All surgeons agreed these obligations can conflict. Individual practices varied with all erring on the side of patient care. Concern about being an outlier in one's section was a greater motivator to alter practice than was fear of litigation. No surgeon thought that patients had an adequate understanding of surgeons' dual agency. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons balance the responsibilities of patient care and stewardship of resources with great variability. Diverse practices likely add to inequalities in healthcare delivery and increase mistrust. Surgeons' social contract with patients calls for transparent strategies to address their dual agency.

Acetabular and isolated pelvic ring fractures: a comparison of initial assessment and outcome.

The purpose of this study was to describe the comparative outcomes of patients with pelvic ring fractures, acetabular fractures, and combinations of the same. Patients with pelvic or acetabular fractures were identified in the Hospital Trauma Registry, and all appropriate data were collected by reviewing the patients' medical records, the hospital operative logs, transfusion records, and the records of surgical morbidity conferences. Patient management was consistent over the time period of the study. Univariate analysis of continuous variables was done using Student's t test; and categorical variables were analyzed with X2 analysis. All statistical analysis was performed using JMP software (SAS International Inc., Cary, NC) with significance set at P < 0.05. One thousand, three hundred and thirty-four patients with 320 acetabular, 826 pelvic ring, and 188 combination fractures over 10 years were analyzed. Age, race, and gender were typical of trauma patients and similar amongst groups. Injury Severity Score was significantly higher (21.3 vs 12.9, P < 0.05) and Glasgow Coma Scale was significantly lower (12.5 vs 13.6, P < 0.05) in patients with pelvic ring fractures as compared with acetabular fractures. Hypotension was more common in patients with pelvic ring fractures (13.9% vs 5.3%, P < 0.05). Patients with pelvic ring fractures required more blood transfusions (3.83 vs 1.36, P < 0.05) and base deficit was lower (-6.7 vs -5.5, P = 0.03). Mortality was significantly higher among patients with pelvic ring fractures (16.5% vs 5.6%, P < 0.01). Among survivors, hospital length of stay (LOS) (18.7 vs 14.8 days, P = 0.08) and intensive care unit LOS (7.8 vs 4.7 days, P = 0.008) were significantly longer with pelvic ring fractures. Functional Independence Measurement scores trended to a higher functional outcome in patients with acetabular fractures (10.3 vs 10.0, P = 0.08). Patients with pelvic ring fractures have a worse admission base deficit, higher transfusion requirements, and increased hypotension on admission. This is reflected in their significantly higher mortality and longer hospital and intensive care unit LOS in survivors. Such clinical information is helpful when caring for patients with acetabular vs pelvic ring fractures.