The choices we make: Ethical challenges in trauma surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ethical issues in trauma surgery are commonplace but scarcely studied. We aim to characterize the ethical dilemmas trauma surgeons encounter in clinical practice and describe perceptions about the ability to manage these dilemmas and strategies they use to address them. METHODS: Members of a U.S. trauma society were electronically surveyed on handling ethically challenging scenarios. The survey instrument was developed using published ethics literature and iterative cognitive interviews. Domains included perceived frequency of encountering and self-efficacy of managing ethical situations in trauma surgery. Common situations were defined as those encountered monthly or weekly. Ethical problems were categorized within 7 larger categories: general ethics, autonomy, communication, justice, end-of-life, conflict, and other. Descriptive analyses were performed; group comparisons were analyzed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Of 1,748 surveyed, 548 responded (30.6%) and 154 (28%) were female. Most were White, under 55 years age, had completed fellowship training, and were practicing at a level I or II trauma center. The most encountered ethical categories were generic ethics and communication (79%). Issues involving conflict were least frequent (21%). Respondents felt most uncomfortable with autonomy topics. Respondents with high self-efficacy in handling ethical situations were older, in practice ≥15 years, served on an ethics committee, and/or frequently experienced ethical challenges. CONCLUSION: Most trauma surgeons regularly encounter ethical challenges, especially those related to communication. Trauma surgeons encounter ethical issues involving conflict least often, and lowest self-efficacy scores with issues involving autonomy. Experienced trauma surgeons reported higher self-efficacy scores in managing ethical issues. Future work should examine how self-efficacy translates to observed behavior, and how trauma surgeons build and enhance their ethical skillsets in the care of the injured patient.

Regional ethics of surgeon resuscitation for organ transplantation after lethal injury.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients may present with nonsurvivable injuries, which could be resuscitated for future organ transplantation. Trauma surgeons face an ethical dilemma of deciding whether, when, and how to resuscitate a patient who will not directly benefit from it. As there are no established guidelines to follow, we aimed to describe resuscitation practices for organ transplantation; we hypothesized that resuscitation practices vary regionally. METHOD: Over a 3-month period, we surveyed trauma surgeons practicing in Levels I and II trauma centers within a single state using an instrument to measure resuscitation attitudes and practices for organ preservation. Descriptive statistics were calculated for practice patterns. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 51% (31/60). Many (81%) had experience with resuscitations where the primary goal was to preserve potential for organ transplantation. Many (90%) said they encountered this dilemma at least monthly. All respondents were willing to intubate; most were willing to start vasopressors (94%) and to transfuse blood (84%) (range, 1 unit to >10 units). Of respondents, 29% would resuscitate for ≥24 hours, and 6% would perform a resuscitative thoracotomy. Respect for patients' dying process and future organ quality were the factors most frequently considered very important or important when deciding to stop or forgo resuscitation, followed closely by concerns about excessive resource use. CONCLUSION: Trauma surgeons' regional resuscitation practices vary widely for this patient population. This variation implies a lack of professional consensus regarding initiation and extent of resuscitations in this setting. These data suggest this is a common clinical challenge, which would benefit from further study to determine national variability, areas of equipoise, and features amenable to practice guidelines.

Impact of implantation time on early function of cardiac transplant.

BACKGROUND: Data on out-of-ice implantation ischemia in heart transplant are scarce. We examined implantation time's impact on allograft dysfunction. METHODS: We conducted a single-site retrospective review of all primary adult heart transplants from June 2012 to August 2019 for implantation warm ischemic time (WIT), defined as first atrial stitch to aortic crossclamp removal. Univariate regression was used to assess the relationship of perioperative variables to primary graft dysfunction (PGD) and to pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) at postoperative hour 24. A threshold of p < .10 was set for the inclusion of covariates in multivariate regression. Secondary analyses evaluated for consistency among alternative criteria for allograft dysfunction. A post hoc subgroup analysis examined WIT effect in prolonged total ischemia of 240 min or longer. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 201 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients who did and did not have WIT documented. In univariate analysis, female gender, longer total ischemic time (TIT), longer bypass time, greater blood transfusions, and pretransplant intensive care unit (ICU) care were associated with PGD, whereas longer bypass time was associated with worse PAPi and pretransplant ICU care was associated with better PAPi. In multivariate analysis, longer bypass time predicted PGD, and worse PAPi and preoperative ICU admission predicted PGD and better PAPi. Results did not differ in secondary or subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of few examining the functional impact of cardiac implantation ischemia. Results suggest allograft implantation time alone may not impact postoperative graft function, which was driven by intraoperative bypass duration and by preoperative ICU care, instead.

Decision Aids Can Support Cancer Clinical Trials Decisions: Results of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often do not make informed decisions regarding clinical trial participation. This study evaluated whether a web-based decision aid (DA) could support trial decisions compared with our cancer center's website. METHODS: Adults diagnosed with cancer in the past 6 months who had not previously participated in a cancer clinical trial were eligible. Participants were randomized to view the DA or our cancer center's website (enhanced usual care [UC]). Controlling for whether participants had heard of cancer clinical trials and educational attainment, multivariable linear regression examined group on knowledge, self-efficacy for finding trial information, decisional conflict (values clarity and uncertainty), intent to participate, decision readiness, and trial perceptions. RESULTS: Two hundred patients (86%) consented between May 2014 and April 2015. One hundred were randomized to each group. Surveys were completed by 87 in the DA group and 90 in the UC group. DA group participants reported clearer values regarding trial participation than UC group participants reported (least squares [LS] mean = 15.8 vs. 32, p < .0001) and less uncertainty (LS mean = 24.3 vs. 36.4, p = .025). The DA group had higher objective knowledge than the UC group's (LS mean = 69.8 vs. 55.8, p < .0001). There were no differences between groups in intent to participate. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements on key decision outcomes including knowledge, self-efficacy, certainty about choice, and values clarity among participants who viewed the DA suggest web-based DAs can support informed decisions about trial participation among cancer patients facing this preference-sensitive choice. Although better informing patients before trial participation could improve retention, more work is needed to examine DA impact on enrollment and retention. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This paper describes evidence regarding a decision tool to support patients' decisions about trial participation. By improving knowledge, helping patients clarify preferences for participation, and facilitating conversations about trials, decision aids could lead to decisions about participation that better match patients' preferences, promoting patient-centered care and the ethical conduct of clinical research.

Show Me My Health Plans: Using a Decision Aid to Improve Decisions in the Federal Health Insurance Marketplace.

INTRODUCTION: Since the Affordable Care Act was passed, more than 12 million individuals have enrolled in the health insurance marketplace. Without support, many struggle to make an informed plan choice that meets their health and financial needs. METHODS: We designed and evaluated a decision aid, Show Me My Health Plans (SMHP), that provides education, preference assessment, and an annual out-of-pocket cost calculator with plan recommendations produced by a tailored, risk-adjusted algorithm incorporating age, gender, and health status. We evaluated whether SMHP compared to HealthCare.gov improved health insurance decision quality and the match between plan choice, needs, and preferences among 328 Missourians enrolling in the marketplace. RESULTS: Participants who used SMHP had higher health insurance knowledge (LS-Mean = 78 vs. 62; P < 0.001), decision self-efficacy (LS-Mean = 83 vs. 75; P < 0.002), confidence in their choice (LS-Mean = 3.5 vs. 2.9; P < 0.001), and improved health insurance literacy (odds ratio = 2.52, P <0.001) compared to participants using HealthCare.gov. Those using SMHP were 10.3 times more likely to select a silver- or gold-tier plan (P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: SMHP can improve health insurance decision quality and the odds that consumers select an insurance plan with coverage likely needed to meet their health needs. This study represents a unique context through which to apply principles of decision support to improve health insurance choices.

Clinicians' perceptions of digital vs. paper-based decision support interventions.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Despite extensive evidence on the value of patient decision support interventions (DESIs), there is no consensus on optimal DESI formats. Assessing clinicians' perceptions about DESI formats can help facilitate their adoption. The aim of this study was to assess clinicians' perceptions of DESIs formats and potential use in practice. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with doctors from diverse practice areas (internal medicine, OB/GYN, surgery, medical oncology, emergency medicine) and elicited perceptions toward patient DESIs formats (digital vs. paper) and timing of administration. Questions also elicited beliefs underlying attitudes, perceived social norms and self-efficacy for using DESIs and the feasibility of doing so. Data analysis was conducted using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants identified strengths of both more comprehensive digital and shorter paper-based tools and thought they could complement each other. Participants consistently expressed the advantages of using DESIs outside the consultation to supplement clinical discussions about cancer decisions given the amount of information to discuss during these emotion-laden conversations. Participants felt that patients with older age and lower socio-economic status were more likely to use a paper-based compared with a digital DESI. Participants also noted challenges related to reliable resources such as computers and Internet in the practice setting, which would be necessary for implementing the digital DESIs on site. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' perceptions and opinions about value of DESIs can vary widely across doctor, patient and clinic characteristics. A one-size-fits-all approach to implementation might not be feasible, suggesting that flexible approaches to providing decision support for patients are needed to drive broader adoption.

Physicians' perceptions of shared decision-making behaviours: a qualitative study demonstrating the continued chasm between aspirations and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is a process of engaging patients in health decisions that involve multiple medically appropriate treatment options. Despite growing public and policy support for patient engagement in health decisions, SDM is not widely practiced in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to explore clinicians' attitudes, beliefs and perceived social norms about engaging in SDM behaviours. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with physicians in five practice areas. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study was conducted at an academic medical centre in St. Louis, MO. The final sample included 20 physicians: five surgeons, five OB/GYNs, four medical oncologists, five internists and one emergency medicine physician. RESULTS: Clinicians described a number of beliefs and cultural- and system-level obstacles to the widespread implementation of SDM, such as how to engage in discussions of cost, uncertainty and clinical equipoise and how to engage patients across various socioeconomic backgrounds. CONCLUSION: Although a large number of participants expressed general support for incorporating SDM into practice, most held fundamentally inconsistent beliefs about practicing specific SDM behaviours. More extensive training of physicians at all levels (pre- and post-licensure) can help increase clinicians' confidence in SDM skills. Developing methods of integrating SDM into the institutional framework of hospitals and training programmes could also increase clinicians' motivation to practice SDM and work to change the culture of medicine such that SDM behaviours are supported.