The way towards ethical anesthesia care: no aim - no game - no fame or blame?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores the intricacies of ethical anesthesia, exploring the necessity for precision anesthesia and its impact on patient-reported outcomes. The primary objective is to advocate for a defined aim, promoting the implementation of rules and feedback systems. The ultimate goal is to enhance precision anesthesia care, ensuring patient safety through the implementation of a teamwork and the integration of feedback mechanisms. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent strategies in the field of anesthesia have evolved from intraoperative monitorization to a wider perioperative patient-centered precision care. Nonetheless, implementing this approach encounters significant obstacles. The article explores the evidence supporting the need for a defined aim and applicable rules for precision anesthesia's effectiveness. The implementation of the safety culture is underlined. The review delves into the teamwork description with structured feedback systems. SUMMARY: Anesthesia is a multifaceted discipline that involves various stakeholders. The primary focus is delivering personalized precision care. This review underscores the importance of establishing clear aims, defined rules, and fostering effective and well tolerated teamwork with accurate feedback for improving patient-reported outcomes. The Safe Brain Initiative approach, emphasizing algorithmic monitoring and systematic follow-up, is crucial in implementing a fundamental and standardized reporting approach within patient-centered anesthesia care practice.

Ethical and practical considerations of pediatric refusal in clinical anesthesia: An educational review.

Children commonly refuse induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia providers must then decide whether to honor the child's dissent or to proceed over objection. In some circumstances, a forced induction involves restraining the child, incurring both practical and ethical harms to the patient-provider encounter. This educational review explores the practical dilemma encountered when a child dissents to induction of anesthesia. In the course of exploring this dilemma, dissent and associated terms are defined and compared, and the prominent ethical underpinnings regarding pediatric decision-making are described to clarify dissent as an ethical and practical concept. Important legal and professional standards are summarized, and practice trends are discussed to depict the current state of practice, including novel approaches to honoring pediatric dissent for elective surgeries. This information is then used to invite providers to consider where they ethically situate themselves within a legally and professionally defined space of acceptable practice. Finally, these considerations are synthesized to discuss important nuances regarding pediatric refusal, and some key questions are presented for clinicians to ponder as they consider their practice of choosing whether to honor pediatric dissent at induction.

Patient Consent for Medical Student Pelvic Exams under Anesthesia: An Exploratory Retrospective Chart Review.

AbstractObjective: We performed this study to examine patients' choices to permit or refuse medical student pelvic examinations under anesthesia (EUAs) during planned gynecologic procedures. DESIGN: We conducted an exploratory retrospective chart review of electronic consent forms at a single academic medical center using contingency tables, logistic regression, and nonparametric tests to explore relationships between patient and physician characteristics and consent. RESULTS: We identified and downloaded electronic consent forms for a census of 4,000 patients undergoing gynecologic surgery from September 2020 through calendar year 2022. Forms were linked to anonymized medical record information. Of the 4,000 patients, 142 (3.6%) were removed from analysis because consent forms were incomplete. Of 3,858 patients, 308 (8.0%) were asked for EUA consent more than once, 46 of whom were not consistent. Overall, 3,308 (85.7%) patients consented every time asked, and 550 (14.2%) refused or limited EUA consent at least once. Nine patients limited their consent to female students, and two patients refused medical student participation at all. We performed exploratory multiple logistic regression analyses exploring differences in rates of consent across patient and physician demographic groups. CONCLUSIONS: We find that some patients are more likely than others to refuse a pelvic EUA, magnifying the dignitary harm from a nonconsensual invasion of intimate bodily integrity and perpetuating historic wrongs visited upon vulnerable people of color and religious minorities. Patients' rights to respect and control over their bodies require that physicians take seriously the ethical obligation to inform their patients and ask them for permission.

Closing the gaps: consent and preoperative assessment for children and young people.

The changing ethical and legal landscape in the UK means that anaesthetists should routinely be discussing the risk of death during the consent process. To do this effectively means expanding anaesthetic preassessment services for children and young people, something that has been recognised as a priority, but which still needs investment and an appreciation of its value at the trust level.

Informed consent in anesthesiology: An exploratory study / El consentimiento informado en anestesiología: un estudio exploratorio / Consentimento informado em anestesiologia: um estudo exploratório

Abstract: In the literature Informed consent (IC) assumptions is well established. However, the different stages and the conditions under which the IC for anesthetic practices is obtained, is scarce. The aim of the present study is to explore the phases and conditions of IC in anesthesiology. Anonymized clinical records of 325 patients submitted to anesthetic procedures at the Institute of Oncology of Porto were analyzed. A total agreement between the anesthetic techniques established in the IC and those performed, was reach with 270 patients. The importance of IC in clinical practice is discussed and an ideal process for IC is argued.

Resumen: El consentimiento informado (CI) está bien establecido en la literatura. Sin embargo, la información sobre las diferentes fases y condiciones en las que se obtiene el CI para las prácticas anestésicas es escasa. El objetivo del presente estudio es explorar las fases y condiciones de obtención de la CI en anestesiología. Se analizaron las historias clínicas anónimas de 325 pacientes sometidos a procedimientos anestésicos en el Instituto de Oncología de Oporto. Se alcanzó una concordancia total entre las técnicas de anestesia establecidas en el CI y las realizadas con 270 pacientes. Se defiende la importancia del CI en la práctica clínica y se discute un proceso ideal para obtenerlo.

Resumo: Na literatura o Consentimento Informado (CI) é bem estabelecido. Contudo, a informação sobre as diferentes fases e as condições em que o CI para práticas anestésicas é obtido, é escassa. O objetivo do presente estudo é explorar as fases e condições da obtenção do CI em anestesiologia. Foram analisados os registos clínicos anónimos de 325 pacientes submetidos a procedimentos anestésicos no Instituto de Oncologia do Porto. Foi alcançado um acordo total entre as técnicas anestésicas estabelecidas no CI e as realizadas, com 270 pacientes. A importância do CI na prática clínica é defendida e discute-se um processo ideal para a obtenção do CI.

Ethical challenges in palliative sedation of adults: protocol for a systematic review of current clinical practice guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to identify the full spectrum of ethical challenges of all forms of palliative sedation for adults as presented in current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to determine whether CPGs specify ethical challenges of this therapy for patients with cancer and non-cancer and, if so, how exactly they do this. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have yet investigated this topic. The purpose is purely descriptive; our aim is not to make any kind of normative judgements on these challenges. Nor is our aim to assess the quality of the CPGs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review of CPGs on palliative sedation for adults via five electronic databases, grey literature search tools, citation tracking and contact with palliative care experts. Current CPGs accredited by an international, national or regional authority, published in English, German, French, Italian or Polish, from 2000 to the date of the search, will be subjected to content analysis at the textual, linguistic and thematic levels. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a protocol for a systematic review and no human will be involved in this research. Therefore, ethics approval and consent to participate are not applicable to this context. This study protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Protocols criteria and registered on PROSPERO. Moreover, the integral version of this study protocol is published as a preprint on Research Square. The results of this study will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and books, international, national and local conference presentations, social media and media in general.

Informed Consent in Patients With Frailty Syndrome.

Frailty is present in more than 30% of individuals older than 65 years of age presenting for anesthesia and surgery, and poses a number of unique issues in the informed consent process. Much attention has been directed at the increased incidence of poor outcomes in these individuals, including postoperative mortality, complications, and prolonged length of stay. These material risks are not generally factored into conventional risk predictors, so it is likely that individuals with frailty are never fully informed of the true risk for procedures undertaken in the hospital setting. While the term "frailty" has the advantage of alerting to risk and allowing appropriate care and interventions, the term has the social disadvantage of encouraging objectivity to ageism. This may encourage paternalistic behavior from carers and family encroaching on self-determination and, in extreme cases, manifesting as coercion and compromising autonomy. There is a high prevalence of neurocognitive disorder in frail elderly patients, and care must be taken to identify those without capacity to provide informed consent; equally important is to not exclude those with capacity from providing consent. Obtaining consent for research adds an extra onus to that of clinical consent. The informed consent process in the frail elderly poses unique challenges to the busy clinical anesthesiologist. At the very least, an increased time commitment should be recognized. The gap between theoretical goals and actual practice of informed consent should be acknowledged.

Pathocentric Health Care and a Minimal Internal Morality of Medicine.

Christopher Boorse is very skeptical of there being a pathocentric internal morality of medicine. Boorse argues that doctors have always engaged in activities other than healing, and so no internal morality of medicine can provide objections to euthanasia, contraception, sterilization, and other practices not aimed at fighting pathologies. Objections to these activities have to come from outside of medicine. I first argue that Boorse fails to appreciate that such widespread practices are compatible with medicine being essentially pathocentric. Then I contend that the pathocentric essence, properly understood, does not prohibit physicians from engaging in actions that are not aimed at combating pathologies, but rather supports an internal morality of medicine that allows medical providers to refuse without penalty to engage in practices that promote pathologies.

[Obtaining Informed Consent for Anesthesia in Elective Surgery at a Tertiary-Care Hospital: Practices and Ethical-Legal Context]. / Obtenção de Consentimento Informado para Anestesia em Cirurgia Eletiva num Hospital Terciário: Práticas e Contexto Ético-Legal.

INTRODUCTION: Informed consent is an active process of the doctor-patient relationship, based on ethical and legal principles. The anesthetic act has inherent risks, which should be subject of specific consent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of implementation of written specific informed consent for anesthesia in the context of elective surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational prospective study, at a tertiary university hospital, in 230 patients aged 60 years or older, undergoing elective surgery between May and July 2017. Eligible patients who consented to participate were interviewed clinically on the day before surgery. In the postoperative period, the anesthetic technique and the existence of the written informed consent for the anesthetic and surgical procedures were assessed. Patients who were unable to give informed consent or those admitted in the Intensive Care Unit after surgery were excluded. RESULTS: Written informed consent for the surgical procedure was obtained for 225 (97.8%), while it was obtained in just 96 (41.7%) patients for the anesthetic act. There was a higher prevalence of stroke, anemia, and higher Charlson and physical American Society of Anesthesiologists scores in patients without written informed consent for the anesthetic act. DISCUSSION: We identified a low implementation of written informed consent for anesthesia. This situation may have important implications in the context of disciplinary, civil or criminal liability. CONCLUSION: Despite its importance, the practice of written informed consent for anesthesia in this institution is not yet implemented on a regular basis.

Introdução: O consentimento informado é um processo ativo na relação médico-doente, assente em valores éticos e legais. O ato anestésico tem riscos inerentes, que devem ser alvo de consentimento específico. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o grau de implementação do consentimento informado escrito para o ato anestésico no contexto de cirurgia eletiva. Material e Métodos: Estudo observacional prospetivo, num hospital terciário e universitário, em 230 doentes com idade igual ou superior a 60 anos submetidos a cirurgia eletiva entre maio e julho de 2017. Aos doentes elegíveis que consentiram participar, foi realizada entrevista clínica no dia prévio à cirurgia. No pós-operatório, foi averiguada a técnica anestésica realizada, e a existência do consentimento informado por escrito para o ato anestésico e cirúrgico. Doentes incapazes de dar consentimento informado ou admitidos na unidade de cuidados intensivos após cirurgia foram excluídos. Resultados: Em 225 (97,8%) dos doentes, verificou-se a obtenção, por escrito, do consentimento informado para o ato cirúrgico, mas apenas em 96 (41,7%) verificou-se a obtenção por escrito do consentimento informado para o ato anestésico. De entre os doentes sem registo de consentimento informado para o ato anestésico, foram mais prevalentes antecedentes de acidente vascular cerebral, anemia e scores de Charlson e de estado físico conforme à Sociedade Americana de Anestesiologia mais elevados. Discussão: Identificámos uma baixa implementação do consentimento informado escrito para o ato anestésico. Esta situação pode ter importantes implicações em contexto de responsabilidade disciplinar, civil ou penal. Conclusão: Apesar da sua importância, a prática do consentimento informado escrito para o ato anestésico nesta instituição não está implementada regularmente.

Using animal-derived constituents in anaesthesia and surgery: the case for disclosing to patients.

BACKGROUND: Animal-derived constituents are frequently used in anaesthesia and surgery, and patients are seldom informed of this. This is problematic for a growing minority of patients who may have religious or secular concerns about their use in their care. It is not currently common practice to inform patients about the use of animal-derived constituents, yet what little empirical data does exist indicates that many patients want the opportunity to give their informed consent. DISCUSSION: First we review the nature and scale of the problem by looking at the groups who may have concerns about the use of animal-derived constituents in their care. We then summarise some of the products used in anaesthesia and surgery that can contain such constituents, such as anaesthetic drugs, surgical implants and dressings. Finally, we explore the problem of animal-derived constituents and consent using Beauchamp and Childress' four principles approach, examining issues of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice. Disclosing the use of animal-derived constituents in anaesthesia and surgery is warranted under Beauchamp and Childress' four principles approach to the problem. Although there exist systemic and practical challenges to implementing this in practice, the ethical case for doing so is strong. The Montgomery ruling presents additional legal reason for disclosure because it entails that patients must be made aware of risks associated with their treatment that they attach significance to.

Indicaciones restrictivas y anestesia / Restrictive indications and anesthesia

Anesthesiologists may deal with ethical dilemmas when looking after Not To Be Resuscitated (NTBR) patients. Sometimes the latters are scheduled to undergo surgical procedures that are palliative in nature. With the advent of the cardio pulmonary resuscitation in the 1960s, new problems arose, such as long resuscitations, quality of life impairment and unnecessary protracted agony. Besides the fear to death and suffering, resuscitation’s dread appeared. In the beginning, the decisión to reject the resuscitation was the physician’s responsability. The development of the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) transfered to the patient or to his/her legal surrogates the right to decide about his/her medical treatment, specially at the end of life. This article revised the evolution that allowed to exercise the patient autonomy, as well as the best way to proceed when anesthesia and surgery are necessary to care for a patient with a Do Not Resuscitate Order.

El anestesiólogo puede enfrentar dilemas éticos cuando debe anestesiar pacientes con indicaciones restrictivas (Límite del Esfuerzo Terapéutico, Orden de No Reanimar). Estos pacientes con frecuencia son sometidos a intervenciones destinadas a mejorar su calidad de vida, o para el control de síntomas, a pesar de tener un mal pronóstico evolutivo, y/o deterioro de su condición física. A mediados de la década de 1960, con la RCP (Reanimación Cardiopulmonar) aparecieron nuevos problemas, como reanimaciones reiteradas, deterioro de la calidad de vida, y prolongación de la agonía. Entonces, al miedo a la muerte y al sufrimiento, se sumó el miedo a la reanimación. Inicialmente, el médico responsable del paciente era el único habilitado para rechazar estas medidas de reanimación (NTBR, “not to be resuscitated”), con el subsiguiente debate bioético. Mas tarde, el desarrollo del principio de autonomía, transfirió al paciente y a su entorno más cercano el derecho a tomar decisiones informadas sobre su propio tratamiento médico1. Este artículo revisa los antecedentes relevantes que han permitido el traspaso del poder de decisión a los pacientes, así como la mejor forma de proceder ante la necesidad de administrarles anestesia cuando hay indicaciones restrictivas.

AAGBI: Consent for anaesthesia 2017: Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Previous guidelines on consent for anaesthesia were issued by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland in 1999 and revised in 2006. The following guidelines have been produced in response to the changing ethical and legal background against which anaesthetists, and also intensivists and pain specialists, currently work, while retaining the key principles of respect for patients' autonomy and the need to provide adequate information. The main points of difference between the relevant legal frameworks in England and Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are also highlighted.

Ethical and legal duty of anesthesiologists regarding Jehovah's Witness patient: care protocol / Dever ético e legal do anestesiologista frente ao paciente testemunha de Jeová: protocolo de atendimento

Abstract Background and objectives: Jehovah's Witnesses patients refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. Anesthesiologists must master specific legal knowledge to provide care to these patients. Understanding how the Law and the Federal Council of Medicine treat this issue is critical to know how to act in this context. The aim of this paper was to establish a treatment protocol for the Jehovah's Witness patient with emphasis on ethical and legal duty of the anesthesiologist. Content: The article analyzes the Constitution, Criminal Code, resolutions of the Federal Council of Medicine, opinions, and jurisprudence to understand the limits of the conflict between the autonomy of will of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse transfusion and the physician's duty to provide the transfusion. Based on this evidence, a care protocol is suggested. Conclusions: The Federal Council of Medicine resolution 1021/1980, the penal code Article 135, which classifies denial of care as a crime and the Supreme Court decision on the HC 268,459/SP process imposes on the physician the obligation of blood transfusion when life is threatened. The patient's or guardian's consent is not necessary, as the autonomy of will manifestation of the Jehovah's Witness patient refusing blood transfusion for himself and relatives, even in emergencies, is no not forbidden.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: Os pacientes testemunhas de Jeová recusam transfusão sanguínea por motivos religiosos. O anestesiologista deve dominar conhecimentos jurídicos específicos para atender esses pacientes. Entender como o direito e o Conselho Federal de Medicina tratam essa questão é fundamental para saber agir dentro desse contexto. O objetivo deste artigo foi estabelecer um protocolo de atendimento do paciente testemunha de Jeová com ênfase no dever ético e legal do anestesiologista. Conteúdo: O artigo analisa a Constituição, o Código Penal, resoluções do Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM), pareceres e jurisprudência para entender os limites do conflito entre a autonomia de vontade da testemunha de Jeová em recusar transfusão e a obrigação do médico em transfundir. Baseado nessas evidências um protocolo de atendimento é sugerido. Conclusões: A resolução do CFM 1021/1980, o Código Penal no artigo 135, que classifica como crime a omissão de socorro, e a decisão do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça sobre o processo HC 268.459/SP impõem ao médico a obrigação de transfusão quando houver risco de vida. Não é necessário concordância do paciente ou de seu responsável, pois não é proibida a manifestação de vontade do paciente testemunha de Jeová ao recusar transfusão sanguínea para si e seus dependentes, mesmo em emergências.

Recomendaciones de «no hacer» de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor. Proyecto «Compromiso por la Calidad de las Sociedades Científicas» / «Do not do» recommendations of the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Therapy. «Commitment to Quality by Scientific Societies» project

El Ministerio de Sanidad (MSSSI) aprobó (abril de 2013) el proyecto denominado «Compromiso por la Calidad de las Sociedades Científicas en España», en respuesta a la demanda social y profesional por la sostenibilidad del sistema de salud. La iniciativa se enmarca en las actividades de la Red Española de Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías y Prestaciones, del Sistema Nacional de Salud, y está coordinado de forma conjunta por la Subdirección General de Calidad y Cohesión, por el Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS), y por la Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI). A este Proyecto se han incorporado todas las sociedades científicas de nuestro país, y su objetivo principal es disminuir la utilización de intervenciones sanitarias innecesarias, con el fin de acordar recomendaciones de «no hacer», basadas en la evidencia científica. Nuestro objetivo primario fue identificar intervenciones que no han demostrado eficacia, tienen efectividad escasa o dudosa, no son coste-efectivas o no son prioritarias. Los objetivos secundarios fueron: la reducción de la variabilidad en la práctica clínica, la difusión entre médicos y pacientes para orientar en la toma de decisiones, el uso adecuado de los recursos sanitarios y, por último, la promoción de la seguridad clínica y la reducción de la iatrogenia. El proceso de selección de las 5 recomendaciones de «no hacer» se realizó mediante la metodología Delphi. 25 panelistas (todo anestesiólogos) eligieron entre 15 propuestas basadas en: evidencia de calidad que la sustenta, relevancia o impacto clínico de la misma y población a la que afecta. Las 5 recomendaciones propuestas fueron: No mantener niveles profundos de sedación en pacientes críticos sin una indicación específica; No realizar radiografía preoperatoria de tórax en pacientes menores de 40 años con estado físico ASA I o II; No realizar, de manera sistemática, pruebas preoperatorias en cirugía de cataratas, salvo indicación basada en historia clínica y exploración física; No programar cirugía electiva con riesgo de hemorragia en pacientes con anemia hasta realizar estudio diagnóstico y tratamiento adecuados; y No realizar pruebas de laboratorio (hemograma, bioquímica y estudio de coagulación) en pacientes sanos o con enfermedad sistémica leve (ASA I y II) previo a cirugías de bajo riesgo, con pérdida estimada de sangre mínima (AU)

In April 2013 the Ministry of Health (MSSSI) adopted the project called «Commitment to Quality by Scientific Societies in Spain», in response to social and professional demands for sustainability of the health system. The initiative is part of the activities of the Spanish Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Services of the National Health System, and is coordinated jointly by the Quality and Cohesion Department, the Aragon Institute of Health Sciences (IACS), and the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI). All the scientific societies in Spain have been included in this project, and its main objective is to reduce the unnecessary use of health interventions in order to agree «do not do» recommendations, based on scientific evidence. The primary objective was to identify interventions that have not proven effective, have limited or doubtful effectiveness, are not cost-effective, or do not have priority. Secondary objectives were: reducing variability in clinical practice, to spread information between doctors and patients to guide decision-making, the appropriate use of health resources and, the promotion of clinical safety and reducing iatrogenesis. The selection process of the 5 «do not do» recommendations was made by Delphi methodology. A total of 25 panellists (all anaesthesiologists) chose between 15 proposals based on: evidence that supports quality, relevance, or clinical impact, and the people they affect. The 5 recommendations proposed were: Do not maintain deep levels of sedation in critically ill patients without a specific indication; Do not perform preoperative chest radiography in patients under 40 years-old with ASA physical status I or II; Do not systematically perform preoperative tests in cataract surgery unless otherwise indicated based on clinical history and physical examination; Do not perform elective surgery in patients with anaemia at risk of bleeding until a diagnostic workup is performed and treatment is given; and not perform laboratory tests (blood count, biochemistry and coagulation) prior to surgery in healthy or low risk patients (ASA I and II) with minimal estimated blood loss (AU)