Health Care 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.

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.

Going Backwards to Fill in the Missing Processes for Training and Evaluation of Clinical Bioethicists: What Has Been Needed for Decades to Move Real Professionalism Forward

As the field of clinical bioethics has moved from its pioneers, who turned their attention to ethics problems in clinical medicine and clinical and animal research, to today's ubiquity of university degrees and fellowships in bioethics, there has been a steady drumbeat to professionalize the field. The problem has been that the necessary next steps-to specify the skills, knowledge, and personal and professional attributes of a clinical bioethicist, and to have a method to train and evaluate mastery of these standards-are lacking. Ordinarily, the path to professionalism in medicine starts with the intellectual pioneers. Then come those who develop early experience in clinical settings. Then comes the specification of the skills, knowledge, and personal and professional attributes needed to perform the activities of the new specialty or subspecialty. And only then, after a method to train and evaluate levels of mastery from novice to advanced practitioner has been developed, comes credible credentialing and certification/licensing. Unfortunately, the field of clinical bioethics has skipped these steps. Rather, a credential, that is, the Healthcare Ethics Consultant (HEC) certification, was created by a small group within the bioethics professional association, the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH), without community agreement or necessary input. Further, the testing of processes to train HECs and to evaluate their levels of mastery of competencies was prematurely forwarded as sufficient evidence of competence in clinical ethics. That is, the credential, offered by the ASBH for a fee upon passing an exam, based on how many hours one has been involved in clinical consultation, about which there is no field agreement on how such consultations ought to be conducted and for which controversial standards have been set by a few, is being touted as evidence of competence in clinical bioethics. In their article, "Competencies and Milestones for Bioethics Trainees," Sawyer and colleagues identify the central weakness of these claims to professionalization and provide the field the first substantive assessment tool and method to train and evaluate competencies. The tool these authors present is the real next step forward for true professionalization of the field of clinical bioethics.

Competencies and Milestones for Bioethics Trainees: Beyond ASBH’s Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification and Core Competencies

Clinical ethics training programs are responsible for preparing their trainees to be competent ethics consultants worthy of the trust of patients, families, surrogates, and healthcare professionals. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) offers a certification examination for healthcare ethics consultants, no tools exist for the formal evaluation of ethics trainees to assess their progress toward competency. Medical specialties accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) use milestones to report trainees’ progress along a continuum of professional development as a means of “operationalizing and implementing” medical competencies. Utilizing the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation and the ACGME and American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Pediatric Milestones Project, we developed milestones for 17 subcompetencies in clinical ethics consultation and academic bioethics. As the field of clinical ethics becomes more standardized, such tools will be needed to promote the development of robust training programs and to certify that their graduates are competent practitioners.

A Proposed Model of Core Competencies for Research Ethics Consultants

Research ethics consultation services (RECS), which function as an advisory service to facilitate the resolution of complex ethical issues in clinical research, have been proliferating over the last decade. However, the qualification of an individual who provides RECS, or “a research ethics consultant,” has not been thoroughly investigated, in contrast to healthcare ethics consultants, whose core competencies have been discussed and clarified to a great extent. In this study, we investigated core competencies necessary for research ethics consultants, referring to the core competency models of ethics consultants developed in the healthcare practice context, and propose a competency model for research ethics consultants.

An American’s Experience with End-of-Life Care in Japan: Comparing Brain Death, Limiting and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Interventions, and Healthcare Ethics Consultation Practices in Japan and the United States

American and Japanese laws, customs, and practices in end-of-life decision-making differ significantly. We present a case with which one of the authors was involved to illustrate some of the key legal and cultural differences in the declaration of brain death, limiting and withdrawing life-prolonging interventions, and healthcare ethics consultation practices. The analysis presented facilitates understanding of similarities and differences between Japanese and American healthcare ethics specifically in regards to end-of-life care. Further, the analysis provides insights that can aid in developing policies and practices in regions where multiple cultures coexist.

Comparison Is Not a Zero-Sum Game: Exploring Advanced Measures of Healthcare Ethics Consultation

Background Studies across the healthcare spectrum consistently show that sharing and comparing data across institutions improves the quality of patient care. Whether comparing data about healthcare ethics consultation (HCEC) would similarly improve quality is unknown due to the lack of research on HCEC data sharing and comparison. Methods: To explore this possibility, we analyzed data from two academic medical centers in the Central-Southern United States that both employ a shared, robust coding system for ethics consultations (N = 703 cases total over 2.5 years) using descriptive and chi-square statistics, correlation coefficients and logistic regressions. Results: Our findings relate to patient age, care location, requestor role, and ethical themes, which together contribute to an improved evidence base for explanatory analyses and quality improvement initiatives. Conclusions: We conclude it is possible to analyze and compare HCEC activities across separate institutions using a standardized approach to data gathering, that this approach is consistent with concurrent narrative case review and assessment, and that cross-institutional comparisons are meaningful. Our results suggest future comparative analyses will require additional standardization of advanced measures for describing and analyzing HCEC activities.

How Much Volume Should Healthcare Ethics Consult Services Have?

No standard method exists to assess how many consults a healthcare ethics consultation (HCEC) service should perform. To address this, we developed a method to estimate the volume of HCEC services based on a mixed-methods approach that included a systematic review and survey data on the volume of consult services requested. Our investigation included a systematic review of studies that reported the volume of HCEC services that were requested from 2000 to 2017, institutional surveys, and statistical analyses that estimated the volume of HCEC services that were adjusted to the size of the hospitals in the survey and to population acuity. We contacted the authors of 19 studies that met our inclusion criteria; 17 authors responded to the institutional survey and five provided annualized data points. We found that standard methods of reporting the volume of HCEC services led to inaccuracies in estimating the growth of HCEC services over time. To rectify this, we proposed two means to estimate volume based on either the service goals of HCEC services or hospital size and acuity. The statistical limitations of our study highlight the need to standardize the sharing and reporting of data in clinical ethics. Future work should further standardize methods of HCEC quality assessment using measures similar to those we describe.

Answering the Call for Standardized Reporting of Clinical Ethics Consultation Data

Benchmarks against which healthcare ethics consultation (HCEC) services can assess their performance are needed. As first-generation benchmarks continue to be developed, it is the obligation of the field to continually evaluate how these measures reflect the performance of any single HCEC service. This will be possible only with widespread reporting of standardized data points. In their article in this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, Glover and colleagues provide a valuable preliminary approach for assessing appropriate consult volumes for a HCEC service. The limitations of their study read as a call to action for the field of clinical ethics to expand and standardize data reporting so that more robust metrics can be developed. In response to this call by Glover and colleagues, the Cleveland Clinic HCEC service provides consult data from 2015 through 2019 for one of its medical centers, and offers an additional volume-based metric, consult-to-ICU-to-bed ratio (CiBR), that may add nuance to any normative assessment of HCEC service consult volume. Given that volume-based metrics are the native language of the clinical environment, efforts to improve such metrics in the field through transparency and standardization are warranted. However, the expositive power of volume- based metrics is limited; additional domains related to quality and outcomes are needed.

On Transference in Clinical Ethics Consultation: Recognizing and Working through the Past in Surrogate Decision Making

Clinical ethics consultants often confront the most difficult clinical encounters, typically in the setting of chronically critically ill patients and surrogate decision makers. These encounters require not only analytical skills but interpersonal skills as well. In this article, I focus on an interpersonal skill absent from the American Society for Bioethics and the Humanities Task Force's Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation. I introduce the psychoanalytic concept of transference and argue that knowledge and use of transference phenomena are sometimes indispensable for ethics consultation with surrogate decision makers. For solicitation of moral views, disclosure of relevant beliefs and values, and identification of the central ethical question-essential to assessment and analysis-cannot at times begin without recognition and working through of transference.

What the HEC-C? An Analysis of the Healthcare Ethics Consultant-Certified Program: One Year in

Efforts to professionalize the field of bioethics have led to the development of the Healthcare Ethics Consultant-Certified (HEC-C) Program intended to credential practicing healthcare ethics consultants (HCECs). Our team of professional ethicists participated in the inaugural process to support the professionalization efforts and inform our views on the value of this credential from the perspective of ethics consultants. In this paper, we explore the history that has led to this certification process, and evaluate the ability of the HEC-C Program to meet the goals it has set forth for HCECs. We describe the benefits and weaknesses of the program and offer constructive feedback on how the process might be strengthened, as well as share our team’s experience in preparing for the exam.

Clinical Ethics Needs Assessment: Adapting Clinical Ethics to a Population Health Program.

The clinical encounter between providers and patients is insufficient: most factors influencing health outcomes occur outside the clinic. Community Health Needs Assessments address this insufficiency via collaboration between hospitals and the communities they serve to address systemic sociological-economic variables impacting health outcomes. Considering this, why are Health Care Ethics Consultation (HCEC) services limited to the clinical setting? We can cultivate better ethics outcomes by addressing systemic sociological-economic factors that cause recurring ethics issues in the hospital. In this article, I argue for the need for a Community Ethics Needs Assessment (CENA). CENA is a novel concept; thus, this article is exploratory. I argue for the necessity of a CENA and, more importantly, outline what methodology a CENA would use to both identify and address an ethics need.

Developing, Administering, and Scoring the Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification Examination.

In November 2018, the practice of health care ethics consultation crossed a major threshold when 138 candidates took the inaugural Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification Examination. This accomplishment, long in the making, has had and continues to have both advocates and critics. The Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification Commission, a functionally autonomous body created and funded by the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, was charged with overseeing creation of the certification process, developing the exam, and formulating certification standards and policies to assess candidates' qualifications. In this essay, as members of the commission, we describe the process of developing, administering, and scoring the certification examination as well as the historical context and the outlook for certification. By detailing the decisions and actions of the commission, we aim to provide a transparent account of the commission's efforts to develop a psychometrically sound, reliable, and secure examination through a deliberative, fair, and data-driven process.

The ASBH Approach to Certify Clinical Ethics Consultants Is Both Premature and Inadequate

In November 2018 the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) administered the first Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification examination to 138 candidates, 136 of whom (98.5 percent) passed and were "certified" as "healthcare ethics consultants." I believe this certification process is both premature and inadequate. Certification for ethics consultants is premature because, as Kornfeld and Prager state repeatedly in their article in this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, "The Clinician as Clinical Ethics Consultant: An Empirical Method of Study," there is a lack of "empirical data on the nature of the problems that prompt ethics consultation requests and on the functions required to address them." These authors proceed to provide a model for the kind of empirical data collection that is needed. Even more relevant, the ASBH model that certifies clinical ethics consultants is inadequate. First, it is inappropriate for a nonclinical organization such as the ASBH to claim the right to certify a clinical process, ethics consultation, involving patients and health professionals. Second, the current certification process requires only a written examination in contrast to the two-step quality attestation process proposed in 2013 by Eric Kodish, MD, and 11 other senior members of the ASBH, including its then president. Third and most importantly, the eligibility criteria for being certified to work on hospital units and to make clinical recommendations for patients and families are minimal and insufficient. The only stated requirements are a bachelor's degree and 400 hours of healthcare ethics consulting experience. By contrast, practicing physicians and nurses train for many years to gain clinical experience that enables them to apply clinical ethical standards in the care and management of all inpatients and outpatients, not just the small percent for whom an ethics consultation is requested.

The Pitfalls of Proceduralism: An Exploration of the Goods Internal to the Practice of Clinical Ethics Consultation.

In an age of professionalization and specialization, the practice of clinical ethics is facing an identity crisis. Are clinical ethicists moral experts, ethics experts, or merely quasi-lawyers giving legal advice? Are they extensions of the hospital, always working to advance the hospital's interests? Or is there another option? Since 1998, when the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) first issued its Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation, there has been debate about the role of standardization and proceduralism in clinical ethics consultation. Now, as ASBH continues to move forward with its credentialing program, proceduralism in clinical ethics must be critically examined. In this paper, I argue that the proceduralist approach to clinical ethics consultation, as espoused by the ASBH's call for credentialing, creates a demeaning experience for all parties involved and precludes goods internal to the practice of clinical ethics consultation from being actualized. As a practice embedded in medicine and in institutions such as the hospital, clinical ethics consultation must define and examine its own goods in order to bring about more than a sterile, law-like solution to difficult moral quandaries, as these sterile solutions leave patients, families, and providers unsatisfied, abandoned, and disappointed. Thus, in an effort to push back against this proceduralism in clinical ethics consultation, I will offer a preliminary exploration of what these goods might be.

The Work of ASBH’s Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Committee: Development Processes Behind Our Educational Materials

The authors of this article are previous or current members of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs (CECA) Committee, a standing committee of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH). The committee is composed of seasoned healthcare ethics consultants (HCECs), and it is charged with developing and disseminating education materials for HCECs and ethics committees. The purpose of this article is to describe the educational research and development processes behind our teaching materials, which culminated in a case studies book called A Case-Based Study Guide for Addressing Patient-Centered Ethical Issues in Health Care (hereafter, the Study Guide). In this article, we also enumerate how the Study Guide could be used in teaching and learning, and we identify areas that are ripe for future work.

Moral Conflicts and Religious Convictions: What Role for Clinical Ethics Consultants?

Moral conflicts over medical treatment that are the result of differences in fundamental moral commitments of the stakeholders, including religiously grounded commitments, can present difficult challenges for clinical ethics consultants. This article begins witha case example that poses such a conflict, then examines how consultants might use different approaches to clinical ethics consultation in an effort to facilitate the resolution of conflicts of this kind. Among the approaches considered are the authoritarian approach, the pure consensus approach, and the ethics facilitation approach described in the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation report of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, as well as a patient advocate approach, a clinician advocate approach, and an institutional advocate approach. The article identifies clear limitations to each of these approaches. An analysis of the introductory case illustrates those limitations, and the article concludes that deep-seated conflicts of this kind may reveal inescapable limits of current approaches to clinical ethics consultation.

Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation

Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation

Clinical bioethics and core competencies of attributes, attitudes, and behaviors: Foundations in philosophy and literature

Summary Philosophy clearly underwrites so much of contemporary bioethics. For example, the work of John Rawls and Norman Daniels provides a foundation for conversations about justice and health care; Alan Wertheimer's conceptual analyses of coercion and exploitation are invaluable to reproductive ethics; much of research ethics relies upon the tenets of utilitarian moral theory, and the ideas of its critics; and thinking surrounding moral reasoning in bioethics draws upon philosophical work on moral particularism, virtue theory and generalist moral thought. The work of Susan Sherwin and Margaret Little has provided a foundation for feminist work in bioethics. There is an area of current bioethical discussion, though, that does not draw upon existing work in philosophy, where it could benefit from doing so. Currently, there is great interest in questions surrounding both the core competencies for healthcare ethics consultants and the appropriate training for future healthcare ethics consultants. The core competencies are currently broken down into three categories: (1) competencies of skill, (2) competencies of knowledge and (3) competencies relating to attributes, attitudes and behaviors (such as forthrightness, humility and the possession of leadership skills). My paper explores the relation between the third category of competencies and the appropriate training for healthcare ethics consultants. While training as it applies to the first two categories of competencies has been addressed, training as it applies to the third category is somewhat curiously undertreated. There may be some reason for this; for example, in contrast to certain types of knowledge, factual knowledge, attributes, attitudes and behaviors might be very challenging to teach. At any rate, I argue that a foundation on which we can rely for help with this issue – this issue of how future healthcare ethics consultants should be trained when it comes to attributes, attitudes, and behaviors – can be found in philosophical discussion about the relation between philosophy and literature. Specifically, I make use of discussion on the question of the extent to which the study of fine literature belongs within moral philosophy. This work illustrates two useful sets of points: that fine literature demands of its reader a certain moral attention (which bears a connection to the attributes and attitudes identified as core competencies for the healthcare ethics consultant) and that literature cultivates that attention as it demands it. This work provides a foundation from which we can address our question regarding the training of future HCECs and it does so in a variety of ways. For one, such work emphasizes the importance of certain attitudes and attributes to reading the moral world and builds upon them by introducing the notion of moral attention. Further, it provides groundwork for the suggestion that the reading of fine literature can inculcate certain habits of mind that I urge are important (though under-recognized) for work in clinical ethics.

American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation (1ª Ed., 1998; 2ª Ed., 2011). ASBH, Improving Competence in Clinical Ethics Consultation: An Education Guide (1ª Ed. 2009; 2ª Ed. 2015). Eric Kodish, Joseph J. Fins, Clarence Braddock III, Felicia Cohn, Nancy Neveloff Dubler, Marion Danis, Arthur R. Derse, Robert A. Pearlman, Martin Smith, Anita Tarzian,

American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation (1ª Ed., 1998; 2ª Ed., 2011). ASBH, Improving Competence in Clinical Ethics Consultation: An Education Guide (1ª Ed. 2009; 2ª Ed. 2015). Eric Kodish, Joseph J. Fins, Clarence Braddock III, Felicia Cohn, Nancy Neveloff Dubler, Marion Danis, Arthur R. Derse, Robert A. Pearlman, Martin Smith, Anita Tarzian,