Ethics Consultation Research Articles

Ethics Consultation in U.S. Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards

Background Adherence to widely accepted practice standards is a frequently used measure of healthcare quality. In the U.S., the most widely recognized authoritative source of practice standards for ethics consultation (EC) is the second edition of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities’ Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation report. Methods To determine the extent to which EC practices in U.S. hospitals adhere to these practice standards, we developed and analyzed 12 evaluative measures from a national survey. Results Only three of the 12 standards achieved over 75% adherence with reported EC practices: allowing anyone involved in a case to request an EC (100%), not requiring an attending physician’s permission to conduct an EC (97.6%), and having at least one person on the ethics consultation service (ECS) with advanced level EC proficiency (79.3%). Conclusions Implications are discussed for achieving consensus on EC standards as they continue to evolve.

Palliative care interventions in intensive care unit patients

The integration of palliative care into intensive care units (ICUs) is advocated to mitigate physical and psychological burdens for patients and their families, and to improve end-of-life care. The most efficacious palliative care interventions, the optimal model of their delivery and the most appropriate outcome measures in ICU are not clear. We conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies to evaluate the number and types of palliative care interventions implemented within the ICU setting, to assess their impact on ICU practice and to evaluate differences in palliative care approaches across different countries. Fifty-eight full articles were identified, including 9 randomised trials and 49 cohort studies; all but 4 were conducted within North America. Interventions were categorised into five themes: communication (14, 24.6%), ethics consultations (5, 8.8%), educational (18, 31.6%), involvement of a palliative care team (28, 49.1%) and advance care planning or goals-of-care discussions (7, 12.3%). Thirty studies (51.7%) proposed an integrative model, whilst 28 (48.3%) reported a consultative one. The most frequently reported outcomes were ICU or hospital length of stay (33/55, 60%), limitation of life-sustaining treatment decisions (22/55, 40%) and mortality (15/55, 27.2%). Quantitative assessment of pooled data was not performed due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies. Beneficial effects on the most common outcomes were associated with strategies to enhance palliative care involvement, either with an integrative or a consultative approach. Few studies reported functional outcomes for ICU patients. Almost all studies were from North America, limiting the generalisability to other healthcare systems.

Ethical Issues in Using Behavior Contracts to Manage the “Difficult” Patient and Family

Long used as a tool for medical compliance and adhering to treatment plans, behavior contracts have made their way into the in-patient healthcare setting as a way to manage the “difficult” patient and family. The use of this tool is even being adopted by healthcare ethics consultants (HECs) in US hospitals as part of their work in navigating conflict at the bedside. Anecdotal evidence of their increasing popularity among clinical ethicists, for example, can be found at professional bioethics meetings and conversations and idea-sharing among practitioners on HEC social media. While there are a handful of papers gesturing toward a bioethical critique of behavior contracts of various types, the use of behavior contracts in the context of interpersonal conflict has not been vetted by bioethicists to determine their ethical legitimacy or efficacy. In this paper, we highlight a set of ethical concerns that we believe must be addressed before continuing or widespread implementation of behavior contracts to manage the “difficult” patient or family.

COVID-19 underscores the important role of Clinical Ethics Committees in Africa

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has magnified pre-existing challenges in healthcare in Africa. Long-standing health inequities, embedded in the continent over centuries, have been laid bare and have raised complex ethical dilemmas. While there are very few clinical ethics committees (CECs) in Africa, the demand for such services exists and has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The views of African healthcare professionals or bioethicists on the role of CECs in Africa have not been explored or documented previously. In this study, we aim to explore such perspectives, as well as the challenges preventing the establishment of CECs in Africa.MethodsTwenty healthcare professionals and bioethicists from Africa participated in this qualitative study that utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. Themes were identified through thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended responses.ResultsKenya and South Africa are the only countries on the continent with formal established CECs. The following themes emerged from this qualitative study: (1) Lack of formal CECs and resolution of ethical dilemmas; (2) Role of CECs during COVID-19; (3) Ethical dilemmas presented to CECs pre-COVID-19; (4) Lack of awareness of CECs; (5) Lack of qualified bioethicists or clinical ethicists; (6) Limited resources to establish CECs; (7) Creating interest in CECs and networking.ConclusionsThis study illustrates the importance of clinical ethics education among African HCPs and bioethicists, more so now when COVID-19 has posed a host of clinical and ethical challenges to public and private healthcare systems. The challenges and barriers identified will inform the establishment of CECs or clinical ethics consultation services (CESs) in the region. The study results have triggered an idea for the creation of a network of African CECs.

Addressing Clinical Misconduct: Resigning and Whistleblowing in Clinical EthicsConsultation.

Clinical ethics consultants occasionally encounter unethical and/or unprofessional behavior as part of their normal job functions. In this article, we explore whether resigning (i.e., threatening resignation or resigning) and whistleblowing are acceptable methods ethics consultants can use to address these situations. Per our analysis, whether one considers ethics consultants private or public employees, loyal to their employer or to patients, families, and the public, resigning and whistleblowing are all acceptable, if not obligatory, actions of ethics consultants in certain circumstances. In this article, we analyze salient characteristics of ethics consultation as a profession as they pertain to resignation and whistleblowing in the context of ethics consultation. We also present tentative criteria for when ethics consultants are justified, if not obligated, to resign or blow the whistle.

From Acute Events to Chronic Disease Conditions: An Integrated Model for Ethics Consultation Along the Continuum of Care

"The Ethics Consultant (EC), where present, is called on to offer a resolution to ethical dilemmas at different times over the course of treatment. However, it is not yet clear under which particular circumstances the intervention of the EC should be requested when chronic diseases occur following an acute event. As part of the treatment of these evolutionary chronic conditions, the pathway is often complex and may involve multiple actors (i.e. departments, hospitals, and others). The role of the EC is often limited to a single department and to an isolated event. Therefore, there is frequently no possibility to take into consideration all of the options inherent to the entire continuum of care and of their consequences for the patient. From intensive care units, rehabilitation wards, long-term hospitalization, through to palliative care, the pathway presents important ethical-clinical questions for the patient, for the healthcare team, and for family members. For these reasons, our objective is to develop a model of consultation integrating the EC along the continuum of care. By analyzing a series of cases, we developed an integrated model of consultation allowing the EC to intervene at different subsequent stages of the process. Our findings suggest that this model is an effective means to allow the EC to provide support in relation to single events but also to coherently pursue – within a collaborative setting across different departments – a specific course of treatment which is respectful of clinical indications and of patients’ and caregivers’ preferences along the whole pathway. "

Quality Assessment of Clinical Ethics Consultation. Reflection on the Applicability of the Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool

"Background. Clinical ethics consultation has been implemented in many health care institutions. Different methods exist for their evaluation. In this paper we present findings from an evaluation of 21 documentation conducted 2019-2020 by means of the Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool (ECQAT). The applicability of the instrument was analyzed based on a) duration of use, b) ease of use, c) comprehensibility of the items. Results. On average, the analysis with the ECQAT takes 11 minutes per protocol. The greatest difficulties in applying the ECQAT arise a) in assessing the counselling-related information and b) in assessing the ethical analysis as well as the recommendations. Here, different demands on the level of detail of the information may lead to different assessments. Furthermore, the transitions of the ethical analysis and the recommendations, which are relevant for the assessment, could not be delimited exactly in parts of the protocols. Discussion. The assessment of documentation represents a limited part of the quality of ethics consultation. In particular, the quality dimensions of the EQAT do not map communicative elements of process quality, which are essential components (if not the core) of ethics consultations. Moreover, the assessment is strongly depending on the format of the protocols, which, depending on the institution, range from a brief overview of the results to a detailed account. Even in light of aforementioned limitations the ECQAT provides an incentive to improve the process quality of (documented) ethics consultation. "

Clinical Trials Involving Minors: The Role of the Ethics Consultation in Avoiding Therapeutic Misconception

"Therapeutic Misconception (TM) occurs when clinical trial participants believe that the central purpose of the trial is therapeutic and that they will personally benefit from participation. If individuals who are entitled to consent to participation in a specific clinical trial do not understand that the defining purpose of clinical research is to produce generalizable knowledge, regardless of whether the subjects enrolled may potentially benefit from the intervention under study, this false belief may motivate them to participate, and in extreme cases may disqualify their consent. TM is especially frequent in fields in which the patients are highly vulnerable, such as when they are children and require parental consent. The informed consent is an essential ethical prerequisite before enrolling each and every participant in research that should protect patients through a process of dialog about a planned course of action. We argue that Ethics Consultant’s competencies may be crucial in avoiding TM: The Ethics Consultant should be involved in neonatal and paediatric clinical trials in order to face the unique vulnerability of children as research subjects, and to ensure that parental consent procedures are rigorously managed, enhancing recruitment in research trials in the context of fully understood consent. "

Clinical Ethics and Disorder of Consciousness

"Disorders of Consciousness (DOCs) identify a diverse group of dysfunctions affecting individuals who have survived severe brain damage. Although the clinical evaluation of patients with DOC normally depends on their residual ability to create a connection with the outside world through motor behavior, in the last ten years neuroscientists have made a great effort to better characterize the patient’s consciousness even in the case of reduced or no motor reactivity. Often, in fact, patients with DOCs are not able to perform any type of movement or adequately understand the command required but they might be still conscious or at least minimally conscious. The gap between patients’ motor capability and their residual brain complexity raises important moral issues, especially about appropriateness and proportionality of interventions and treatments. We argue that Clinical Ethics Consultation may be crucial in addressing these clinical scenarios, which assume aspects of further drama when the DOC derives from a sudden and unexpected acute event such as a trauma or a cerebrovascular accident in healthy patients. In these situations, given the particular vulnerability of the patients and the unpredictability of the diseases, Ethics Consultants should be involved in the therapeutic process in order to improve the standard of care, ensuring compliance with the inclinations and desires of the patients. Moreover, Ethics Consultants should monitor that the procedures are rigorously managed in the context of fully understood consent of those who are legally entitled to make decision. "

The Italian Master in Clinical Bioethics Consultation: 2013-2020 Experience

"This work is aimed at critically illustring the eight-year experience of the Master in “Clinical Bioethics Consultation” (2013-2020). This advanced second-level Master was promoted in 2013 by the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Rome, and co-worked by other Italian clinical as well as academic institutions (University Campus Bio-medico of Rome, Insubria University of Varese, “Federico II” University of Naples, Lanza Foundation of Padua, Local Health and Social Care Unit n. 7 (ULSS) of Veneto Region, Treviso; Ospedale San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli – Isola Tiberina, Rome, and Italian Group for clinical ethics consultation (GIBCE)). To this aim, it first will discuss two points: on the one hand, an epistemological one, i.e. the justification of the activity of ethics consultant in clinical settings supported by the authors; on the other hand, a pedagogical one, i.e. the identification of the learning needs clinical bioethics gives birth to. The second part of the work will focus on the experience of the Master, explaining its basic features (objectives, methods, contents, evaluation tools, etc), offering a critical review, and identifying the challenges this initiative has to face in the next future. "

Tolerance: Too Little for Clinical Ethics in a Pluralist Society?

"Virtually all Western societies embrace liberalism as a political and moral; it emphasizes individual rights and liberty, democracy, autonomy, limited government, consent, pluralism, and tolerance. Clinical ethics in these societies reflects those priorities. Human migration has made Western societies more diverse and expanded the plurality of values represented within them. As a consequence, clinical ethics consultants (CEC) have encountered cases which reflect a clash between the liberal values of contemporary medical ethics and non-liberal values of patients. Because CECs are steeped in liberalism, their default attitude toward the values outside of that tradition will be tolerance. This paper will argue that because tolerance implicitly contains a judgment of inferiority to other values, it is the wrong attitude for CECs to adopt towards parties whose fundamental values clash with medical ethics. In such cases, this attitude can disrespect to the holders of the values, endorse a consequentialist compromise of values, and leave medical professionals prone to moral distress. Agonism democracy is a political philosophy that accepts that values conflicts are inevitable, and there will be winners and losers from them. It aims to channel this conflict positively by promoting a process marked by openness to questioning fundamental values and genuine consideration of (even contrary) alternate values. As an alternative to tolerance, this paper will explore if cultivating an attitude of agonism can be a better disposition for CECs in such cases. It will use a case study to compare the results of the two approaches in cases of fundamental values clash. "

Ethics Consultation in United States Hospitals: Assessment of Training Needs

To help inform the development of more accessible, acceptable, and effective ethics consultation (EC) training programs, we conducted an EC training needs assessment, exploring ethics practitioners' opinions on: the relative importance of various EC practitioner competencies; the potential market for EC training (that is, how many individuals would benefit and how much individuals and hospitals would be willing to pay); and the preferred content, format, and characteristics of EC training. As part of a multipart study, we surveyed "best informants" who self-identified as the person most actively involved in EC or healthcare ethics in a random sample of 600 U.S. general hospitals, stratified for bed size. The competency that was ranked most important for a lead or solo ethics consultant was knowledge of ethics, while common sense was ranked least important. The median estimated number of individuals at each hospital who would benefit from EC training was six at the basic level, three at the advanced level, and two for EC management training. In 19.1 percent of hospitals, respondents thought their hospital would not be willing to pay anything for EC training within the next two years. Respondents thought potential trainees would be likely to participate in EC training on multiple different topics. Opinions varied widely on preferred formats. Most respondents thought it very important to be able to interact with instructors and with other trainees, practice EC skills, receive a certificate for completing EC training, and complete EC training during work hours. These findings provide U.S. population data that may be useful to healthcare educators and bioethics leaders in their efforts to develop EC training programs and products that match trainees' preferences and needs.

Discussion Guide for the Hua Article.

Discussion Guide for the Hua Article.

Creating a Research Ethics Consultation Service: Issues to Consider.

This article provides pragmatic advice for organizations interested in creating a research ethics consultation service (RECS). A robust RECS has the potential to build capacity among investigators to identify and consider the ethical issues they encounter while conducting their research. Determining whether to establish an RECS should begin with an institutional-needs assessment that includes three key questions: What are the current resources available to research teams to navigate ethical concerns that arise from their research? Is there a demand or perceived need for more resources? Is there institutional support (financial and otherwise) to establish and maintain an RECS? If this results in the decision to establish the consultation service, relevant institutional stakeholders must be identified and consulted, and personnel with the requisite skills recruited. The next step is to establish an RECS and build the infrastructure to process and respond to requests. The RECS's long-term sustainability will depend on a stable source of funding and a mechanism to receive constructive feedback to ensure that the service is meeting the institutional needs it set out to address.

Clinical Ethics Consultations in the Opinion of Polish Physicians

Clinical Ethics Consultations (CEC) are an important tool for physicians in solving difficult cases. They are extremely common in North America and to a lesser extent also present in Europe. However, there is little data on this practice in Poland. We present results of a survey of 521 physicians practising in Poland concerning their opinion on CECs and related practices. We analysed the data looking at such issues as CECs’ perceived availability, use of CECs, and perceived usefulness of such support. Physicians in our study generally encounter hard ethics cases, even—surprisingly—those who do not work in hospitals. Most physicians have no CEC access, and those that do still do not employ CECs. However, physicians perceive this form of support as useful—even more so among actual users of CECs. We compared these findings with similar studies from other European countries and the North America. We point out peculiarities of our results as compared to those in other countries, with some possible explanations. We hope the results may encourage regulatory debate on the need to formally introduce CECs into the Polish healthcare system.

Relevance of the Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) for Clinical Staff of a Specialized Neurological Clinic

Clinical ethics committees (CECs) have been implemented in German clinics since the 1990s. Besides problems with the integration into clinical routines, CECs result in an enrichment and relief for employees and relatives. Investigating the current status of CECs in specialized neurological clinics is crucial because changes in therapy goals towards palliative care are often requested and the treatment team is sometimes overwhelmed with clarifying the presumed patient's wishes. So far, however, there have been no studies that have examined the work of the CEC and its importance for clinical staff in specialized neurological clinics. In a single-center, prospective observational study, 161 clinic employees with contact to the patients and 10 members of the CEC were asked about their previous experiences and impressions with and in the CEC. At the same time, 31 patients were retrospectively identified for whom an ethical case consultation was carried out by the CEC in 2019. A qualitative evaluation was carried out for the protocols of the ethical case counseling. 56% of the clinic employees and 90% of the CEC members considered the CEC as enrichment for the clinic. Although more than a third of the clinic employees evaluated the CEC as a relief during difficult ethical decisions, the presence of the CEC in particular for relatives and employees is described as insufficient. In the majority, a reduction in the hierarchy by the CEC was confirmed by the members of the CEC (70%), whereas the majority of the clinic employees increasingly denied this (55%). The CEC recommendation was implemented in 94% of the cases. A central problem in working with and within a CEC is maybe the lack of presence and information for employees. Due to this lack of presence, the CEC is not sufficiently visible in everyday clinical practice.

Research Ethics Consultation in Nursing Studies.

Despite the importance and acceptance of research ethics consultation as an entity in many medical research areas, little is known about its status in nursing research. Focusing on inquiries from nurse researchers, we retrospectively analyzed records of integrated clinical research consultation, provided by members of the Clinical Research Center independently of the research ethics committee, at a Japanese university hospital during 2018-2019. Among various consultations in nursing studies (n = 101), 43 were related to research ethics. The main issues in research ethics consultation were compatibility with guidelines (n = 28; 65%) and application of ethics review (n = 12; 28%). Future studies should investigate international settings and address the relevance of research ethics consultation to promote proper nursing studies.

Health care ethics programs in U.S. Hospitals: results from a National Survey

BackgroundAs hospitals have grown more complex, the ethical concerns they confront have grown correspondingly complicated. Many hospitals have consequently developed health care ethics programs (HCEPs) that include far more than ethics consultation services alone. Yet systematic research on these programs is lacking.MethodsBased on a national, cross-sectional survey of a stratified sample of 600 US hospitals, we report on the prevalence, scope, activities, staffing, workload, financial compensation, and greatest challenges facing HCEPs.ResultsAmong 372 hospitals whose informants responded to an online survey, 97% of hospitals have HCEPs. Their scope includes clinical ethics functions in virtually all hospitals, but includes other functions in far fewer hospitals: ethical leadership (35.7%), regulatory compliance (29.0%), business ethics (26.2%), and research ethics (12.6%). HCEPs are responsible for providing ongoing ethics education to various target audiences including all staff (77.0%), nurses (59.9%), staff physicians (49.0%), hospital leadership (44.2%), medical residents (20.3%) and the community/general public (18.4%). HCEPs staff are most commonly involved in policy work through review of existing policies but are less often involved in development of new policies. HCEPs have an ethics representative in executive leadership in 80.5% of hospitals, have representation on other hospital committees in 40.7%, are actively engaged in community outreach in 22.6%, and lead large-scale ethics quality improvement initiatives in 17.7%. In general, major teaching hospitals and urban hospitals have the most highly integrated ethics programs with the broadest scope and greatest number of activities. Larger hospitals, academically affiliated hospitals, and urban hospitals have significantly more individuals performing HCEP work and significantly more individuals receiving financial compensation specifically for that work. Overall, the most common greatest challenge facing HCEPs is resource shortages, whereas underutilization is the most common greatest challenge for hospitals with fewer than 100 beds. Respondents’ strategies for managing challenges include staff training and additional funds.ConclusionsWhile this study must be cautiously interpreted due to its limitations, the findings may be useful for understanding the characteristics of HCEPs in US hospitals and the factors associated with these characteristics. This information may contribute to exploring ways to strengthen HCEPs.

Ethical Framework to Guide Decisions of Treatment Over Objection

Whether to proceed with a medical intervention over the objection of a patient who lacks capacity is a common problem facing practitioners. Despite this, there is a notable gap in the literature describing how to proceed in such situations in an ethically rigorous and consistent fashion. We elaborate on the practical application of the 2018 Rubin and Prager 7-question algorithm for ethics consultations about treatment over objection and we describe the impact of each of the 7 questions. We retrospectively review a series of consultations at Columbia University Irving Medical Center between April 2017 and May 2020 for treatment over objection in adult patients determined to lack capacity. Outcomes about the final ethics recommendation and the assessment of each of the 7 questions are reported. The statistical analysis was designed to determine which of the 7 questions in the algorithm were most predictive of the final ethics recommendation. In our series, there was an ethics recommendation to proceed over the objection of a patient in 63% of consultations. Although all 7 questions were considered to be important to the ethical analysis of a patient's situation, the presence of logistical barriers to treatment and the imminence of harm to a patient without treatment emerged as the most significant drivers of the recommendation of whether to proceed over objection or not. Cases of treatment over objection in a patient lacking capacity are frequently encountered problems that require a careful balance of patient autonomy and a physician's duty of beneficence. The application of the Rubin and Prager 7-question algorithm reliably guides a care team through such a complex ethical dilemma.

Christian Bioethics and the Partisan Commitments of Secular Bioethicists: Epistemic Injustice, Moral Distress, Civil Disobedience

Abstract Secular bioethicists do not speak from a place of distinction, but from within particular culturally, socially, and historically conditioned standpoints. As partisans of moral and ideological agendas, they bring their own biases, prejudices, and worldviews to their roles as ethical consultants, social advocates, and academics, attempting rhetorically to sway others and shift policy to a preferred point of view. Their pronouncements represent just one voice among others, even when delivered with strident rhetoric, in an educated and knowing tone, from within institutional positions of power. This essay argues that, given the hegemony of progressive secular bioethics, traditional Christians routinely face epistemic injustice within medicine. That is, Christian knowledge regarding moral reality is all too often demeaned or dismissed, unless such norms can be translated into and defended within a secular ethos. Given such systemic bias, I argue, Christians also experience significant moral distress: they are fully aware of their moral obligations and what they ought to do, but institutionalized power structures make it nearly impossible to so act. But, Christian physicians are not mere technicians, obliged to provide whatever patients request from the list of legally available treatments. That antireligious critics seek to remove the rights of Christian physicians to limit how they practice medicine, where they do not offer or refer for abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other inappropriate forms of care, is unjustified and prejudicial, singling out Christians, and other religious groups, for singular treatment. Regardless of what the law requires or institutional policy demands, however, Christians are obliged to submit to God in all things. As a result, they may at times find themselves required to engage in acts of civil disobedience.