How Should Organizations and Clinicians Help Marginalized Patients Manage Loneliness as a Harm of Climate Change?

This commentary on a case outlines 4 interventions that would help to prevent or mitigate illness and attendant loneliness affecting vulnerable patients during extreme weather events. It suggests that an individualistic approach to the collective problem of climate change is inadequate and that health professionals and health organizations should (1) transition from reactive climate change strategies to integrating disaster preparedness into daily operations and (2) advocate for changes in society that address harms and begin to mitigate the negative effects of climate change, especially on marginalized people.

Incarcerated Patients and Equitability: The Ethical Obligation to Treat Them Differently.

Prisoners are legally categorized as a vulnerable group for the purposes of medical research, but their vulnerability is not limited to the research context. Prisoner-patients may experience lower standards of care, fewer options for treatment, violations of privacy, and the use of inappropriate surrogates as a result of their status. This case study highlights some of the ways in which a prisoner-patient's vulnerable status impacted the care he received. The article argues the following: (1) Prisoner-patients are entitled to the same quality of care as all other patients, and healthcare providers should be vigilant to ensure that the stigma of incarceration does not influence care decisions. (2) Options for treatment should reflect what is most medically appropriate in the hospital or other healthcare setting, even when not all treatments would be available in the correctional setting. (3) The presence of guards at the bedside requires that additional measures be taken to protect the privacy and confidentiality of prisoner-patients. (4) When end-of-life decisions must be made for an incapacitated patient, prison physicians are not well placed to act as surrogate decision makers, which heightens the obligations of the healthcare professionals in the hospital to ensure an ethically supportable process and outcome. Therefore, healthcare professionals should provide extra protection for those prisoner-patients who do not have decision-making capacity, by utilizing a robust process for decision making such as those used for incapacitated patients without surrogates, rather than relying solely on prison physicians as surrogates.

The Impact of Nursing Protocols on Continuous Special Observation.

BACKGROUND: Continuous Special Observation (CSO) is commonly ordered for patients at risk to injure themselves or others and involves assigning staff to monitor one patient at all times. CSO is intrusive, costly, and often has deleterious effects on patient care. Two nursing protocols were developed as alternative interventions to CSO. The first protocol, Psychiatric Nursing Availability (PNA), was designed to treat patients having suicidal or self-injurious thoughts. The second protocol, Psychiatric Monitoring and Intervention (PMI), was designed to prevent violent and impulsive behavior. These protocols had their genesis in a model that encourages nursing autonomous decision making. OBJECTIVE: Identify the impact PNA and PMI had on the number of CSO and their duration. STUDY DESIGN: Nine-year descriptive retrospective analysis of CSO, PNA, and PMI. The data were collected from the unit 15-minute rounding sheets. Descriptive analyses were performed. Interrupted time series analysis was used to determine how the protocols affected frequency and duration of CSO. RESULTS: PNA did not significantly affect CSO; however, PMI did affect its use. There was a downward trend in the number of CSOs after PMI was implemented by 0.07 episodes per month ( p = .0111). The median duration of CSO dropped from 66 hours to 33 hours after PMI was implemented ( p = .0004). CONCLUSION: PMI had the greatest impact on CSO. PMI had a secondary effect of increasing staff availability on the unit that affected CSO's use. The model of nursing care may have influenced this reduction in CSO.

The Kolb learning cycle in American Board of Surgery In-Training Exam remediation: the Accelerated Clinical Education in Surgery course.

BACKGROUND: Surgical training integrates the 4 steps of the Kolb learning cycle. Residents who scored at 30th percentile or less on the American Board of Surgery In-Training Exam (ABSITE) were enrolled in the Accelerated Clinical Education in Surgery (ACES) course that incorporated the Kolb cycle. METHODS: For concrete experience, Surgical Education and Self-Assessment Program (SESAP-13) was completed according to the syllabus. For reflective consideration, further reading was done on SESAP 13 topics and corresponding ABSITE Keywords. For the abstract hypotheses step; these keywords and topics were reviewed with the mentor. Active testing involved a required weekly on-line quiz based on the syllabus. RESULTS: Correct scores on the ABSITE increased for 78.6% of residents in the ACES course, with 28.6% scoring 30th percentile or greater. Senior percent correct scores increased by 7.3% and junior percentile scores by 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Remediation using the Kolb cycle improved ABSITE performance for a majority of participants.

Justified commitments? Considering resource allocation and fairness in Medecins sans Frontieres-Holland.

Non-governmental aid programs are an important source of health care for many people in the developing world. Despite the central role non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in the delivery of these vital services, for the most part they either lack formal systems of accountability to their recipients altogether, or have only very weak requirements in this regard. This is because most NGOs are both self-mandating and self-regulating. What is needed in terms of accountability is some means by which all the relevant stakeholders can have their interests represented and considered. An ideally accountable decision-making process for NGOs should identify acceptable justifications and rule out unacceptable ones. Thus, the point of this paper is to evaluate three prominent types of justification given for decisions taken at the Dutch headquarters of Médecins sans Frontières. They are: population health justifications, mandate-based justifications and advocacy-based justifications. The central question at issue is whether these justifications are sufficiently robust to answer the concerns and objections that various stakeholders may have. I am particularly concerned with the legitimacy these justifications have in the eyes of project beneficiaries. I argue that special responsibilities to certain communities can arise out of long-term engagement with them, but that this type of priority needs to be constrained such that it does not exclude other potential beneficiaries to an undesirable extent. Finally, I suggest several new institutional mechanisms that would enhance the overall equity of decisions and so would ultimately contribute to the legitimacy of the organization as a whole.