At the threshold of viability: to resuscitate or not to resuscitate - the perspectives of Israeli neonatologists.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the perspectives of neonatologists in Israel regarding resuscitation of preterm infants born at 22-24 weeks gestation and their consideration of parental preferences. The factors that influence physicians' decisions on the verge of viability were investigated, and the extent to which their decisions align with the national clinical guidelines were determined. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive and correlative study using a 47-questions online questionnaire. RESULTS: 90 (71%) of 127 active neonatologists in Israel responded. 74%, 50% and 16% of the respondents believed that resuscitation and full treatment at birth are against the best interests of infants born at 22, 23 and 24 weeks gestation, respectively. Respondents' decisions regarding resuscitation of extremely preterm infants showed significant variation and were consistently in disagreement with either the national clinical guidelines or the perception of what is in the best interest of these newborns. Gender, experience, country of birth and the level of religiosity were all associated with respondents' preferences regarding treatment decisions. Personal values and concerns about legal issues were also believed to affect decision-making. CONCLUSION: Significant variation was observed among Israeli neonatologists regarding delivery room management of extremely premature infants born at 22-24 weeks gestation, usually with a notable emphasis on respecting parents' wishes. The current national guidelines do not fully encompass the wide range of approaches. The country's guidelines should reflect the existing range of opinions, possibly through a broad survey of caregivers before setting the guidelines and recommendations.

Do-not-resuscitate order in COVID-19 times: bioethics and professional ethics.

OBJECTIVE: To reflect about the do-not-resuscitation order at COVID-19 in Brazil, under bioethical focus and medical and nursing professional ethics. METHOD: Reflection study based on the principlist bioethics of Beauchamps and Childress and in professional ethics, problematizing actions, and decisions of non-resuscitation in the pandemic. RESULTS: It is important to consider the patient's clinic, appropriation of treatment goals for people with comorbidities, elderly people, with less chance of surviving to resuscitation, or less quality of life, with the palliative care team, to avoid dysthanasia, use of scarce resources and greater exposure of professionals to contamination. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 increased the vulnerabilities of professionals and patients, impacting professional decisions and conduct more widely than important values ​​such as the restriction of freedom. It propelled the population in general to rethink ethical and bioethical values ​​regarding life and death, interfering in decisions about them, supported by human dignity.

Viability and thresholds for treatment of extremely preterm infants: survey of UK neonatal professionals.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about treatments for extremely preterm infants (EPIs) born in the 'grey zone' of viability can be ethically complex. This 2020 survey aimed to determine views of UK neonatal staff about thresholds for treatment of EPIs given a recently revised national Framework for Practice from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. METHODS: The online survey requested participants indicate the lowest gestation at which they would be willing to offer active treatment and the highest gestation at which they would withhold active treatment of an EPI at parental request (their lower and upper thresholds). Relative risks were used to compare respondents' views based on profession and neonatal unit designation. Further questions explored respondents' conceptual understanding of viability. RESULTS: 336 respondents included 167 consultants, 127 registrars/fellows and 42 advanced neonatal nurse practitioners (ANNPs). Respondents reported a median grey zone for neonatal resuscitation between 22+1 and 24+0 weeks' gestation. Registrars/fellows were more likely to select a lower threshold at 22+0 weeks compared with consultants (Relative Risk (RR)=1.37 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.74)) and ANNPs (RR=2.68 (95% CI 1.42 to 5.06)). Those working in neonatal intensive care units compared with other units were also more likely to offer active treatment at 22+0 weeks (RR=1.86 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.94)). Most participants understood a fetus/newborn to be 'viable' if it was possible to survive, regardless of disability, with medical interventions accessible to the treating team. CONCLUSION: Compared with previous studies, we found a shift in the reported lower threshold for resuscitation in the UK, with greater acceptance of active treatment for infants <23 weeks' gestation.

COVID-19-Related Ethics Consultations at a Cancer Center in New York City: A Content Review of Ethics Consultations During the Early Stages of the Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised a variety of ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Limited data are available on how a patient's concomitant cancer diagnosis affected ethical concerns raised during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all COVID-related ethics consultations registered in a prospectively collected ethics database at a tertiary cancer center between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Primary and secondary ethical issues, as well as important contextual factors, were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical ethics consultations were performed on 24 patients with cancer (58.3% male; median age, 65.5 years). The most common primary ethical issues were code status (n = 11), obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (n = 3), patient autonomy (n = 3), resource allocation (n = 3), and delivery of care wherein the risk to staff might outweigh the potential benefit to the patient (n = 3). An additional nine consultations raised concerns about staff safety in the context of likely nonbeneficial treatment as a secondary issue. Unique contextual issues identified included concerns about public safety for patients requesting discharge against medical advice (n = 3) and difficulties around decision making, especially with regard to code status because of an inability to reach surrogates (n = 3). CONCLUSION: During the early pandemic, the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 spurred a number of ethics consultations, which were largely focused on code status. Most cases also raised concerns about staff safety in the context of limited benefit to patients, a highly unusual scenario at our institution that may have been triggered by critical supply shortages.

Resuscitating Patient Rights during the Pandemic: COVID-19 and the Risk of Resurgent Paternalism.

The COVID-19 Pandemic a stress test for clinical medicine and medical ethics, with a confluence over questions of the proportionality of resuscitation. Drawing upon his experience as a clinical ethicist during the surge in New York City during the Spring of 2020, the author considers how attitudes regarding resuscitation have evolved since the inception of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders decades ago. Sharing a personal narrative about a DNR quandry he encountered as a medical intern, the author considers the balance of patient rights versus clinical discretion, warning about the risk of resurgent physician paternalism dressed up in the guise of a public health crisis.

Bringing into focus treatment limitation and DNACPR decisions: How COVID-19 has changed practice.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR. METHODS: The study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019. RESULTS: A total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease.

An alternative approach to developing guidelines for the management of an anticipated extremely preterm infant.

Objectives To identify the probability of survival and severe neurodevelopmental impairment (sNDI) at which perinatal physicians would or would not offer or recommend resuscitation at birth for extremely preterm infants. Methods A Delphi process consisting of five rounds was implemented to seek consensus (>80% agreement) amongst British Columbia perinatal physicians. The first-round consisted of neonatal and maternal-fetal-medicine Focus Groups. Rounds two to five surveyed perinatal physicians, building upon previous rounds. Draft guidelines were developed and agreement sought. Results Based on 401 responses across all rounds, consensus was obtained that resuscitation should not be offered if survival probability <5%, not recommended if survival probability 5 to <10%, resuscitation recommended if survival without sNDI probability >70 to 90% and resuscitation standard care if survival without sNDI >90%. Conclusions This physician consensus-based, objective framework for the management of an anticipated extremely preterm infant is a transparent alternative to existing guidelines, minimizing gestational-ageism and allowing for individualized management utilizing up-to-date data. Further input from other key stakeholders will be required prior to guideline implementation.

COVID-19-Impact on DNR Orders in the Largest Cancer Center in Jordan.

The COVID-19 pandemic requires health care teams to rethink how they can continue to provide high-quality care for all patients, whether they are suffering from a COVID-19 infection or other diseases with clinical uncertainty. Although the number of COVID-19 cases in Jordan remains relatively low compared to many other countries, our team introduced significant changes to team operations early, with the aim of protecting patients, families, and health care staff from COVID-19 infections, while preparing to respond to the needs of patients suffering from severe COVID-19 infections. This paper describes the changes made to our "do not resuscitate" policy for the duration of the pandemic.

Parents' Descriptions of Neonatal Palliation as a Treatment Option Prior to Periviable Delivery.

During periviable deliveries, parents are confronted with overwhelming and challenging decisions. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the language that pregnant women and important others utilize when discussing palliation, or "comfort care," as a treatment option in the context of periviability. We prospectively recruited women admitted for a threatened periviable delivery (22-25 weeks) at 2 hospitals between September 2016 and January 2018. Using a semistructured interview guide, we investigated participants' perceptions of neonatal treatment options, asking items such as "How was the choice of resuscitation presented to you?" and "What were the options presented?" Conventional content analysis was used and matrices were created to facilitate using a within- and across-case approach to identify and describe patterns. Thirty women and 16 important others were recruited in total. Participants' descriptions of treatment options included resuscitating at birth or not resuscitating. Participants further described the option to not resuscitate as "comfort care," "implicit" comfort care, "doing nothing," and "withdrawal of care." This study revealed that many parents facing periviable delivery may lack an understanding of comfort care as a neonatal treatment option, highlighting the need to improve counseling efforts in order to maximize parents' informed decision-making.

Treating or Killing? The Divergent Moral Implications of Cardiac Device Deactivation.

In this article, I argue that there is a moral difference between deactivating an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and turning off a cardiac pacemaker (CP). It is, at least in most cases, morally permissible to deactivate an ICD. It is not, at least in most cases, morally permissible to turn off a pacemaker in a fully or significantly pacemaker-dependent patient. After describing the relevant medical technologies-pacemakers and ICDs-I continue with contrasting perspectives on the issue of deactivation from practitioners involved with these devices: physicians, nurses, and allied professionals. Next, I offer a few possible analyses of the situation, relying on recent work in medical ethics. Considerations of intention, responsibility, and replacement support my distinguishing between ICDs and CPs. I conclude by recommending a change in policy of one of the leading cardiac societies.

Reducing Discrepancy Between Code Status Orders and Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Therapies: Results of a Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Advanced care planning through Physician Order For Life-Sustaining Therapies (POLST) has been encouraged by professional societies. But these documents may be overlooked or ignored during hospitalization and "full-code" orders written as a default, putting patients at risk for unwanted resuscitation. After 2 instances of unwanted resuscitation in which limited support POLSTs were ignored, a series of improvements were implemented. This study measured the effectiveness of those steps in reducing POLST code status discrepancy. METHODS: Pre-post implementation chart review of randomly chosen medical admissions to determine the rate of discordance between POLST orders (when present) and admission code status orders. Physician Order For Life-Sustaining Therapies were classified as either "full" or "limited" based on orders for life-sustaining therapies on the form. Chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests were performed on binary data to identify statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level between pre- and postimplementation admissions. RESULTS: In all, 444 preimplementation and 448 postimplementation admissions were evaluated. Discrepant code status orders for those with limited POLST fell from 10 (22.7%) of 44 preimplementation to 3 (4.6%) of 65 after implementation, P = .006. The number of documented code status discussions in admission notes increased from 19.6% to 63.6% (P < .001). The median age of all POLST in the chart was 1.2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among those patients with limited POLST orders, discrepant full-code orders increase the potential for unwanted resuscitation. Multistep improvements including documentation templates improved the process of verifying end-of-life wishes and increased meaningful code status discussions. The rate of discrepant orders fell in response to process improvements.