Physician understanding and application of surrogate decision-making laws in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Although state surrogate laws are the most common way surrogate decision makers are identified, no studies have been conducted to determine physician understanding of these laws or how these laws are utilized during clinical practice. The purpose of this study is to better understand how surrogate decision-making laws function in practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 412 physicians working in Indiana hospitals was conducted between November 2014 and January 2015 to determine physicians' knowledge of Indiana's surrogate decision-making law and physicians' approaches to hypothetical cases using the law in clinical practice. RESULTS: Fewer than half of physicians (48%) were able to correctly identify all legally allowable surrogate decision makers. Of those physicians who knew the law, nearly all of them (98%) indicated that they would violate the law during clinical practice by allowing nonlegal surrogates such as grandchildren to make medical decisions. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of physicians endorse relying on surrogates who have strong ties to the patient but are not legally allowable in Indiana. It is possible that these decisions reflect sound ethical reasoning even though they are illegal. Due to the narrow construction of some state surrogate decision laws, physicians may be placed in the position where they must either choose to follow medical ethical principles or the law. To alleviate these issues, state surrogate decision laws need to be amended to include a broader list of surrogates, such as extended family and close friends.

Benchmarks for ethically credible partnerships between industry and academic health centers: beyond disclosure of financial conflicts of interest.

Relationships between industry and university-based researchers have been commonplace for decades and have received notable attention concerning the conflicts of interest these relationships may harbor. While new efforts are being made to update conflict of interest policies and make industry relationships with academia more transparent, the development of broader institutional partnerships between industry and academic health centers challenges the efficacy of current policy to effectively manage these innovative partnerships. In this paper, we argue that existing strategies to reduce conflicts of interest are not sufficient to address the emerging models of industry-academic partnerships because they focus too narrowly on financial matters and are not comprehensive enough to mitigate all ethical risk. Moreover, conflict-of-interest strategies are not designed to promote best practices nor the scientific and social benefits of academic-industry collaboration. We propose a framework of principles and benchmarks for "ethically credible partnerships" between industry and academic health centers and describe how this framework may provide a practical and comprehensive approach for designing and evaluating such partnerships.

Perspective: is it time for advocacy training in medical education?

As the modern medical system becomes increasingly complex, a debate has arisen over the place of advocacy efforts within the medical profession. The authors argue that advocacy can help physicians fulfill their social contract. For physicians to become competent in patient-centered, clinical, administrative, or legislative advocacy, they require professional training. Many professional organizations have called for curricular reform to meet society's health needs during the past 30 years, and the inclusion of advocacy training in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education is supported on both pragmatic and ethical grounds. Undergraduate medical education, especially, is an ideal time for this training because a standard competency can be instilled across all specialties. Although the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education includes advocacy training in curricula for residency programs, few medical schools or residency programs have advocacy electives. By understanding the challenges of the health care system and how to change it for the better, physicians can experience increased professional satisfaction and effectiveness in improving patient care, systems-based practice, and public health.

Medical ethics education: where are we? Where should we be going? A review.

PURPOSE: The authors' primary goal was to provide a comprehensive and current review of the literature surrounding ethics education for medical students. Following this review, the authors summarize the deficits in the current literature and provide recommendations for future inquiries on medical ethics education. METHOD: In 2004, the authors searched MEDLINE and PubMed using the following search terms: ethics, ethics education, medical ethics education, curriculum, undergraduate medical education, virtue, role model, philosophy of medicine, and outcomes research. No limit was placed on dates for this literature search. Articles whose primary focus was professionalism were excluded because the professionalism literature tends to focus on competencies and postgraduate education, whereas the primary focus of this study was on undergraduate education. Literature on physicians as role models to medical students as a form of teaching medical ethical ethics was excluded as well because the current discussion examines the formal undergraduate medical ethics curricula. Also excluded were reports from foreign countries (unless there were no equivalent studies in the United States). The authors found almost no literature exploring students' backgrounds (cultural, religious, socioeconomic, etc.) and the teaching of medical ethics in medical schools. Otherwise, the authors reviewed everything they could find, regardless of imperfections in individual reports such as small sample size or poor research methodology. RESULTS: The review, which encompassed articles from 1978 to 2004, revealed that deep shortcomings exist in the literature on medical ethics education. Deficits exist in all areas of the literature: (1) theoretical work done on the overall goals of medical ethics education; (2) empirical studies that attempt to examine outcomes for students; (3) studies examining teaching methods in medical ethics education, and (4) studies evaluating the effectiveness of various teaching methods. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial opportunities for contribution to the literature on medical ethics education in all of the areas where deficits exist. The literature suggests that two points of view exist regarding the purpose of teaching medical ethics: (1) that it is a means of creating virtuous physicians; and (2) that it is a means of providing physicians with a skill set for analyzing and resolving ethical dilemmas. This dichotomy made it difficult to arrive at a consensus regarding the goals of medical ethics education. The field would benefit from further theoretical work aimed at better delineating the core content, core processes, and core skills relevant to the ethical practice of medicine. The time has come to organize an effort to improve and validate medical ethics education. In the end, effective medical ethics education will further the goals of medicine in dramatic and tangible ways.

Developing an OSTE to address lapses in learners' professional behavior and an instrument to code educators' responses.

PURPOSE: To develop an instrument for measuring medical educators' responses to learners' lapses in professional behavior. METHOD: In 1999, at the Indiana University School of Medicine, a 22-item checklist of behaviors was developed to describe common responses used by educators responding to learners' lapses in professional behavior. Four medical students were trained to portray lapses in professional behaviors. These students and seven clinical observers trained to categorize behaviors as present or absent. Interrater reliability was assessed during 18 objective structured teaching evaluations (OSTEs). Videotaped OSTEs were coded twice at a one-month interval for test-retest reliability. Items were classified as low, moderate, or high inference behaviors. Script realism and educator effectiveness were assessed. RESULTS: Educators rated OSTE scripts as realistic. Raters observed an average of 6 +/- 2 educator behaviors in reaction to learners' lapses in professional behavior. Educators' responses were rated as moderately effective. More experienced educators attempted more interventions and were more effective. Agreement was high among raters (86% +/- 7%), while intraclass correlation coefficients decreased with increasing inference level. From videotaped OSTEs, raters scored each behavior identically 86% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate feedback on educators' interactions in addressing learners' professionalism is essential for faculty development. Traditionally, educators have felt that faculty's responses to learners' lapses in professional behavior were difficult to observe and categorize. These data suggest that educators' responses to learners' lapses in professional behavior can be defined and reliably coded. This work will help provide objective feedback to faculty when engaging learners about lapses in professional behavior.