Inconsistencies in rater-based assessments mainly affect borderline candidates: but using simple heuristics might improve pass-fail decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Research in various areas indicates that expert judgment can be highly inconsistent. However, expert judgment is indispensable in many contexts. In medical education, experts often function as examiners in rater-based assessments. Here, disagreement between examiners can have far-reaching consequences. The literature suggests that inconsistencies in ratings depend on the level of performance a to-be-evaluated candidate shows. This possibility has not been addressed deliberately and with appropriate statistical methods. By adopting the theoretical lens of ecological rationality, we evaluate if easily implementable strategies can enhance decision making in real-world assessment contexts. METHODS: We address two objectives. First, we investigate the dependence of rater-consistency on performance levels. We recorded videos of mock-exams and had examiners (N=10) evaluate four students' performances and compare inconsistencies in performance ratings between examiner-pairs using a bootstrapping procedure. Our second objective is to provide an approach that aids decision making by implementing simple heuristics. RESULTS: We found that discrepancies were largely a function of the level of performance the candidates showed. Lower performances were rated more inconsistently than excellent performances. Furthermore, our analyses indicated that the use of simple heuristics might improve decisions in examiner pairs. DISCUSSION: Inconsistencies in performance judgments continue to be a matter of concern, and we provide empirical evidence for them to be related to candidate performance. We discuss implications for research and the advantages of adopting the perspective of ecological rationality. We point to directions both for further research and for development of assessment practices.

How should respiratory depression and loss of airway patency be handled during initiation of palliative sedation?

BACKGROUND: Loss of airway patency has been reported during initiation of palliative sedation. In present guidelines the loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation is not addressed. Airway patency can be restored by jaw thrust/chin lift or placing the patient in the recovery position. AIM: A structured ethical analysis of how respiratory depression and loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation should be handled. The essence of the dilemma is whether it is appropriate to apply simple non-invasive methods to restore airway patency in order to avoid the patient's immediate death. DESIGN: A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and stakeholders' interests. RESULTS: Beneficence and autonomy support a decision not to regain airway patency whereas non-maleficence lends weight to a decision to restore airway patency. Whether the proportionality criterion of the principle of double effect is met depends on the features of the individual case. The ethical problem appears to be a genuine dilemma where important values and arguments point to different conclusions. CONCLUSION: Whether to restore airway patency when the airway is obstructed during initiation of palliative sedation will ultimately be based on clinical judgment taking into account both any known patient preferences and relevant clinical information. There are strong arguments favoring both options in this clinical and ethical dilemma. The fact that a clear and universal recommendation cannot be made does not imply indifference regarding what is the clinically and ethically best option for each individual patient.

Blurred lines: Ethical challenges related to autonomy in home-based care.

BACKGROUND: Home-based care workers mainly work alone in the patient's home. They encounter a diverse patient population with complex health issues. This inevitably leads to several ethical challenges. AIM: The aim is to gain insight into ethical challenges related to patient autonomy in home-based care and how home-based care staff handle such challenges. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study is based on a 9-month fieldwork, including participant observation and interviews in home-based care. Data were analysed with a thematic analysis approach. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: The study took place within home-based care in three municipalities in Eastern Norway, with six staff members as key informants. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research evaluated the study. All participants were competent to consent and signed an informed consent form. FINDINGS: A main challenge was that staff found it difficult to respect the patient's autonomy while at the same time practicing appropriate care. We found two main themes: Autonomy and risk in tension; and strategies to balance autonomy and risk. These were explicated in four sub-themes: Refusing and resisting care; when choosing to live at home becomes risky; sweet-talking and coaxing; and building trust over time. Staff's threshold for considering the use of coercion appeared to be high. CONCLUSIONS: Arguably, home-based care staff need improved knowledge of coercion and the legislation regulating it. There is also a need for arenas for ethics reflection and building of competence in balancing ethical values in recurrent ethical problems.

A study of the experience of Norwegian IVF physicians in evaluating the parenting capacity of patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How do Norwegian fertility doctors assess the parenting capacity of applicants, and how do they experience and evaluate the assessment practice? DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with 14 Norwegian fertility doctors. Interviews were analysed with systematic text condensation, a qualitative analysis framework. RESULTS: Norwegian fertility doctors deem parenting capacity assessments of applicants to be straightforward and simple in most cases. Yet, some cases of doubt pose difficulties. Physicians can then draw on resources such as colleagues, physicians from other specialties who know the patient and patient records. All the participating physicians agreed with the principle of parenting capacity assessment for patients seeking fertility treatment. The assessment enabled physicians to refuse patients whom they thought should definitely not have responsibility for children. The physicians' main argument was their own felt responsibility for the future child. Even though assessments could be challenging, the participants all thought of themselves as competent to perform them. Indeed, some thought that delegating the assessments would imply abdicating a responsibility that was properly theirs. Although national guidelines might aid decision-making, the physicians would not want guidelines to curtail the significant discretion that they exercised. CONCLUSIONS: Whether societies should assess applicants' capacity for parenthood before fertility treatment is an ethical and political question. Although sometimes a difficult task, Norwegian fertility doctors see it as important, and as something they are competent and suited to undertake.

Balancing burdens of infection control: Norwegian district medical officers' ethical challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In several countries, district medical officers (DMOs) are public health experts with duties including infection control measures. The Norwegian DMOs have been key actors in the local handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The aim of the study was to explore the ethical challenges experienced by Norwegian DMOs during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how the DMOs have handled these challenges. 15 in-depth individual research interviews were performed and analyzed with a manifest approach. RESULTS: Norwegian DMOs have had to handle a large range of significant ethical problems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Often, a common denominator has been the need to balance burdens of the contagion control measures for different individuals and groups. In another large set of issues, the challenge was to achieve a balance between safety understood as effective contagion prevention on the one hand, and freedom, autonomy and quality of life for the same individuals on the other. CONCLUSIONS: The DMOs have a central role in the municipality's handling of the pandemic, and they wield significant influence. Thus, there is a need for support in decision-making, both from national authorities and regulations, and from discussions with colleagues.

Trust in healthcare before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Public trust is often advantageous for health authorities during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Norwegian health authorities used the public´s high trust to control the pandemic, resulting in relatively few casualties. METHODS: We wanted to describe and compare the Norwegian public trust in GPs, public healthcare, information and treatment in hospitals before and during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, we wanted to investigate the relationship between somatic or mental illness, and trust in GPs and public health information, and to develop a theoretical understanding of the relationship between trust in healthcare institutions, generalised trust and the societal situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed two surveys, the first in December 2019; the second in May 2020, thus providing two snapshots of the Norwegian public's trust in healthcare and healthcare actors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: There was statistically significant increased trust in public healthcare, in treatment at hospital and in information at hospital after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a non-significant rise in trust in GPs. We found that trust in public health information was not related to mental health nor having a chronic, somatic disease. CONCLUSION: The findings confirm that the Norwegian public's trust in healthcare and healthcare actors is high. The trust levels are also relatively stable, and even show an increase during the early phases of the pandemic. We suggest that there is a dynamic relationship between trust in public health information, healthcare institutions, generalised trust and a societal crisis situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the GP-patient trust seems less affected by a crisis situation, than the public´s trust in healthcare institutions. This difference may be explained by the relative stability caused by mandates of trust obtained from the patient.

Citizen attitudes to non-treatment decision making: a Norwegian survey.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about appropriate treatment at the end of life are common in modern healthcare. Non-treatment decisions (NTDs), comprising both withdrawal and withholding of (potentially) life-prolonging treatment are in principle accepted in Norway. However, in practice they may give rise to significant moral problems for health professionals, patients and next of kin. Here, patient values must be considered. It is relevant to study the moral views and intuitions of the general population on NTDs and special areas of contention such as the role of next of kin in decision-making. METHODS: Electronic survey to members of a nationally representative panel of Norwegian adults. Respondents were presented with vignettes describing patients with disorders of consciousness, dementia, and cancer where patient preferences varied. Respondents answered ten questions about the acceptability of non-treatment decision making and the role of next of kin. RESULTS: We received 1035 complete responses (response rate 40.7%). A large majority, 88%, supported the right of competent patients to refuse treatment in general. When an NTD was in line with the patient's previously expressed preferences, more respondents tended to find NTDs acceptable. More respondents would accept NTDs for themselves than for the vignette patients. In a scenario with an incompetent patient, clear majorities wanted the views of next of kin to be given some but not decisive weight, and more weight if concordant with the patient's wishes. There were, however, large variations in the respondents' views. CONCLUSION: This survey of a representative sample of the Norwegian adult population indicates that attitudes to NTDs are often in line with national laws and guidelines. However, the high variance among the respondents and relatively large weight given to next of kin's views, indicate a need for appropriate dialogue among all stakeholders to prevent conflicts and extra burdens. Furthermore, the emphasis given to previously expressed opinions indicates that advance care planning may increase the legitimacy of NTDs and prevent challenging decision-making processes.

Evaluating a clinical ethics committee (CEC) implementation process in an oncological research hospital: protocol for a process evaluation study using normalisation process theory (EvaCEC).

INTRODUCTION: A Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) is a multi-professional service whose aim is to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organisations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice.Although CEC are quite common worldwide, their successful implementation in a hospital setting presents many challenges.EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC) will evaluate the implementation of a CEC in a comprehensive cancer centre in Northern Italy 16 months after its establishment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EvaCEC is a mixed-method study with a retrospective quantitative analysis and a prospective qualitative evaluation by a range of data collection tools to enable the triangulation of data sources and analysis. Quantitative data related to the amount of CEC activities will be collected using the CEC's internal databases. Data on the level of knowledge, use and perception of the CEC will be collected through a survey with closed-ended questions disseminated among all the HPs employed at the healthcare centre. Data will be analysed with descriptive statistics.The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) will be used for the qualitative evaluation to determine whether and how the CEC can be successfully integrated into clinical practice. We will perform one-to-one semistructured interviews and a second online survey with different groups of stakeholders who had different roles in the implementation process of the CEC. Based on NPT concepts, the interviews and the survey will assess the acceptability of the CEC within the local context and needs and expectations to further develop the service. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the local ethics committee. The project is co-chaired by a PhD candidate and by a healthcare researcher with a doctorate in bioethics and expertise in research. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05466292.

Establishing Clinical Ethics Committees in Primary Care: A Study from Norwegian Municipal Care.

Would primary care services benefit from the aid of a clinical ethics committee (CEC)? The implementation of CECs in primary care in four Norwegian municipalities was supported and their activities followed for 2.5 years. In this study, the CECs' structure and activities are described, with special emphasis on what characterizes the cases they have discussed. In total, the four CECs discussed 54 cases from primary care services, with the four most common topics being patient autonomy, competence and coercion; professionalism; cooperation and disagreement with next of kin; and priority setting, resource use and quality. Nursing homes and home care were the primary care services most often involved. Next of kin were present in 10 case deliberations, whereas patients were never present. The investigation indicates that it might be feasible for new CECs to attain a high level of activity including case deliberations within the time frame. It also confirms that significant, characteristic and complex moral problems arise in primary care services.

Research, education, ethics consultation: evaluating a Bioethics Unit in an Oncological Research Hospital.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the activities of a Bioethics Unit (BU) 5 years since its implementation (2016-2020). The BU is a research unit providing empirical research on ethical issues related to clinical practice, clinical ethics consultation, and ethical education for health care professionals (HPS). METHODS: We performed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method, observational study, using the subsequent qualitative data to explain the initial quantitative findings. Quantitative data were collected from an internal database and analyzed by descriptive analysis. Qualitative evaluation was performed by semi-structured interviews with 18 HPs who were differently involved in the BU's activities and analyzed by framework analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative results showed an extensive increment of the number of BU research projects over the years and the number of work collaborations with other units and wards. Qualitative findings revealed four main themes, concerning: 1. the reasons for contacting the BU and the type of collaboration; 2. the role of the bioethicist; 3. the impact of BU activities on HPs, in terms of developing deeper and more mature thinking; 4. the need to extend ethics support to other settings. Overall, our results showed that performing both empirical bioethics research and more traditional clinical ethics activities at the same unit would produce an impetus to increase collaboration and spread an 'ethical culture' among local HPs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature on the models of clinical ethics support services and the role of empirical research in bioethics internationally. They also prepare the ground for the implementation of a multidisciplinary Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) that aims to support the BU's ethics consultation service within the local context.

Duty to treat and perceived risk of contagion during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian physicians' perspectives and experiences-a questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic actualised the dilemma of how to balance physicians´ obligation to treat patients and their own perceived risk of being infected. To discuss this in a constructive way we need empirical studies of physicians´ views of this obligation. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to a representative sample of Norwegian physicians in December 2020. We measured their perceived obligation to expose themselves to infection, when necessary, in order to provide care, concerns about being infected themselves, for spreading the virus to patients or to their families. We used descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The response rate was 1639/2316 (70.9%), 54% women. Of doctors < 70, 60,2% (95% CI 57.7-62.7) acknowledged to some or a large degree an obligation to expose themselves to risk of infection, and 42.0% (39.5-44.5) held this view despite a scarcity of personal protective equipment (PPE). Concern about being infected oneself to some or to a large extent was reported by 42.8% (40.3-45.3), 47.8% (45.3-50.3) reported concern about spreading the virus to patients, and 63.9% (61.5-66.3) indicated worry about spreading it to their families. Being older increased the odds of feeling obligated (ExpB = 1.02 p < 0.001), while experiencing scarcity of PPE decreased the odds (ExpB = 0.74, p = 0.01). The odds of concern about spreading virus to one´s family decreased with higher age (Exp B = 0.97, p < 0.001), increased with being female (Exp B = 1.44, p = 0.004), and perceived lack of PPE (Exp B = 2.25, p < 0.001). Although more physicians working in COVID-exposed specialties experienced scarcity of PPE and reported perceived increased risks for health personnel, the odds of concern about being infected themselves or spreading the virus to their families were not higher than for other doctors. CONCLUSION: These empirical findings lead to the question if fewer physicians in the future will consider the duty to treat their top priority. This underscores the need to revisit and revitalise existing ethical codes to handle the dilemma between physicians´ duty to treat versus the duty to protect physicians and their families. This is important for the ability to provide good care for the patient and the provider in a future pandemic situation.

Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences.

BACKGROUND: In the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable. METHODS: In December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors' familiarity with them must improve.

Attitudes towards priority setting in the norwegian health care system: a general population survey.

BACKGROUND: In an ideal world, everyone would receive medical resources in accordance with their needs. In reality, resources are often scarce and have an alternative use. Thus, we are forced to prioritize. Although Norway is one of the leading countries in normative priority setting work, few descriptive studies have been conducted in the country. To increase legitimacy in priority setting, knowledge about laypeople's attitudes is central. The aim of the study is therefore to assess the general population's attitudes towards a broad spectrum of issues pertinent to priority setting in the Norwegian publicly financed health care system. METHODS: We developed an electronic questionnaire that was distributed to a representative sample of 2 540 Norwegians regarding their attitudes towards priority setting in Norway. A total of 1 035 responded (response rate 40.7%). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: A majority (73.0%) of respondents preferred increased funding of publicly financed health services at the expense of other sectors in society. Moreover, a larger share of the respondents suggested either increased taxes (37.0%) or drawing from the Government Pension Fund Global (31.0%) as sources of funding. However, the respondents were divided on whether it was acceptable to say "no" to new cancer drugs when the effect is low and the price is high: 38.6% somewhat or fully disagreed that this was acceptable, while 46.5% somewhat or fully agreed. Lastly, 84.0% of the respondents did not find it acceptable that the Norwegian municipalities have different standards for providing care services. CONCLUSION: Although the survey suggests support for priority setting among Norwegian laypeople, it has also revealed that a significant minority are reluctant to accept it.

Clinical ethics committees in nursing homes: what good can they do? Analysis of a single case consultation.

BACKGROUND: Ought nursing homes to establish clinical ethics committees (CECs)? An answer to this question must begin with an understanding of how a clinical ethics committee might be beneficial in a nursing home context - to patients, next of kin, professionals, managers, and the institution. With the present article, we aim to contribute to such an understanding. AIM: We ask, in which ways can clinical ethics committees be helpful to stakeholders in a nursing home context? We describe in depth a clinical ethics committee case consultation deemed successful by stakeholders, then reflect on how it was helpful. RESEARCH DESIGN: Case study using the clinical ethics committee's written case report and self-evaluation form, and two research interviews, as data. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: The nursing home's ward manager and the patient's son participated in research interviews. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Data were collected as part of an implementation study. Clinical ethics committee members and interviewed stakeholders consented to study participation, and also gave specific approval for the publication of the present article. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Six different roles played by the clinical ethics committee in the case consultation are described: analyst, advisor, support, moderator, builder of consensus and trust, and disseminator. DISCUSSION: The case study indicates that clinical ethics committees might sometimes be of help to stakeholders in moral challenges in nursing homes. CONCLUSIONS: Demanding moral challenges arise in the nursing home setting. More research is needed to examine whether clinical ethics committees might be suitable as ethics support structures in nursing homes and community care.

Navigating abortion law dilemmas: experiences and attitudes among Ethiopian health care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Ethiopia's 2005 abortion law improved access to legal abortion. In this study we examine the experiences of abortion providers with the revised abortion law, including how they view and resolve perceived moral challenges. METHODS: Thirty healthcare professionals involved in abortion provisions in Addis Ababa were interviewed. Transcripts were analyzed using systematic text condensation, a qualitative analysis framework. RESULTS: Most participants considered the 2005 abortion law a clear improvement-yet it does not solve all problems and has led to new dilemmas. As a main finding, the law appears to have opened a large space for professionals' individual interpretation and discretion concerning whether criteria for abortion are met or not. Regarding abortion for fetal abnormalities, participants support the woman's authority in deciding whether to choose abortion or not, although several saw these decisions as moral dilemmas. All thought that abortion was a justified choice when a diagnosis of fetal abnormality had been made. CONCLUSION: Ethiopian practitioners experience moral dilemmas in connection with abortion. The law places significant authority, burden and responsibility on each practitioner.

Ought the level of sedation to be reduced during deep palliative sedation? A clinical and ethical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Deep palliative sedation (DPS) is applied as a response to refractory suffering at the end of life when symptoms cannot be relieved in an awake state. DPS entails a dilemma of whether to provide uninterrupted sedation-in which case DPS would turn into deep and continuous palliative sedation (DCPS) -to minimise the risk that any further intolerable suffering will occur or whether to pause sedation to avoid unnecessary sedation. DPS is problematic in that it leaves the patient 'socially dead' by eradicating their autonomy and conscious experiences. AIM: To perform a normative ethical analysis of whether guidelines should recommend attempting to elevate consciousness during DPS. DESIGN: A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and consideration of stakeholders' interests. RESULTS: When DPS is initiated it reflects that symptom relief is valued above the patient's ability to exercise autonomy and experience social interaction. However, if a decrease in symptom burden occurs, waking could be performed without patients experiencing suffering. Such pausing of deep sedation would satisfy the principles of autonomy and beneficence. Certain patients require substantial dose increases to maintain sedation. Waking such patients risks causing distressing symptoms. This does not happen if deep sedation is kept uninterrupted. Thus, the principle of non-maleficence points towards not pausing sedation. The authors' clinical ethics analysis demonstrates why other stakeholders' interests do not appear to override arguments in favour of providing uninterrupted sedation. CONCLUSION: Stopping or pausing DPS should always be considered, but should not be routinely attempted.

Positive attitudes to advance care planning - a Norwegian general population survey.

BACKGROUND: Authorities recommend advance care planning and public acceptance of it is a prerequisite for widespread implementation. Therefore, we did the first study of the Norwegian public with an aim of getting knowledge on their attitudes to issues related to advance care planning. METHODS: An electronic survey to a nationally representative web panel of Norwegian adults. RESULTS: From 1035 complete responses (response rate 40.7%), we found that more than nine out of ten of the general public wanted to participate in advance care planning, believed it to be useful for many, and wanted to make important healthcare decisions themselves. Almost nine out of ten wanted to be accompanied by next of kin during advance care planning. Most (69%) wanted health care personnel to initiate advance care planning and preferred it to be timed to serious illness with limited lifetime (68%). Only about 9% stated that health care personnel should have the final say in healthcare decisions in serious illness. CONCLUSIONS: Developing and implementing advance care planning as a public health initiative seems warranted based on the results of this study. Patient perspectives should be promoted in decision-making processes. Nevertheless, training of health care personnel should emphasise voluntariness and an individual approach to initiating, timing and conducting advance care planning because of individual variations.