Cargando…

Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series

BACKGROUND: The concept of clinical ethics consultation (CECs) was implemented to provide support in ethical controversies in clinical settings and are offered in at least every second hospital in Germany. Neurological disorders often require complex decision-making. The aims of this study were to d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ilse, Benjamin, Alt-Epping, Bernd, Günther, Albrecht, Liman, Jan, Simon, Alfred
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34088284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02244-2
_version_ 1783703304263434240
author Ilse, Benjamin
Alt-Epping, Bernd
Günther, Albrecht
Liman, Jan
Simon, Alfred
author_facet Ilse, Benjamin
Alt-Epping, Bernd
Günther, Albrecht
Liman, Jan
Simon, Alfred
author_sort Ilse, Benjamin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The concept of clinical ethics consultation (CECs) was implemented to provide support in ethical controversies in clinical settings and are offered in at least every second hospital in Germany. Neurological disorders often require complex decision-making. The aims of this study were to determine which situations lead to CEC in neurology and to investigate the influence of the individual patient’s wishes on the recommendation. METHODS: Standardised CEC protocols in the years 2011 to 2017 at the University Hospitals of Goettingen and Jena were retrospectively surveyed. The contents were categorised along existing protocol templates of CEC scenarios and subsequently paraphrased and reduced to significant meanings. RESULTS: 27 CEC scenarios which were facilitated by various professional disciplines were reviewed. Stroke was the most frequent underlying condition. Nearly all patients were not able to consent. Mostly, the relatives acted as representatives or health advocates. In 67 % of cases, a sense of conflict triggered a CEC; in 33 % a sense of uncertainty was the reason for the CEC request. In 21 CEC scenarios, a recommendation was reached in consensus with all parties involved. In 59 % of cases, a decision was made to continue medical therapy. In seven cases, the patient’s wishes led to a limitation of therapy, while in just two cases this decision was made primarily relying on the patient’s best interest. In only 13 % of cases, a valid advance directive led to respective therapeutic consequences. CONCLUSIONS: CEC is feasible for consensus-finding not only in conflicts, but also in situations of therapeutic uncertainty in neurology. There is a special importance of the patient’s wishes in decision-making in neurology. However, only in a few cases were advance directives precise and specific enough to have sufficient and decisive weight in therapeutic decision-making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8176721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81767212021-06-04 Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series Ilse, Benjamin Alt-Epping, Bernd Günther, Albrecht Liman, Jan Simon, Alfred BMC Neurol Research BACKGROUND: The concept of clinical ethics consultation (CECs) was implemented to provide support in ethical controversies in clinical settings and are offered in at least every second hospital in Germany. Neurological disorders often require complex decision-making. The aims of this study were to determine which situations lead to CEC in neurology and to investigate the influence of the individual patient’s wishes on the recommendation. METHODS: Standardised CEC protocols in the years 2011 to 2017 at the University Hospitals of Goettingen and Jena were retrospectively surveyed. The contents were categorised along existing protocol templates of CEC scenarios and subsequently paraphrased and reduced to significant meanings. RESULTS: 27 CEC scenarios which were facilitated by various professional disciplines were reviewed. Stroke was the most frequent underlying condition. Nearly all patients were not able to consent. Mostly, the relatives acted as representatives or health advocates. In 67 % of cases, a sense of conflict triggered a CEC; in 33 % a sense of uncertainty was the reason for the CEC request. In 21 CEC scenarios, a recommendation was reached in consensus with all parties involved. In 59 % of cases, a decision was made to continue medical therapy. In seven cases, the patient’s wishes led to a limitation of therapy, while in just two cases this decision was made primarily relying on the patient’s best interest. In only 13 % of cases, a valid advance directive led to respective therapeutic consequences. CONCLUSIONS: CEC is feasible for consensus-finding not only in conflicts, but also in situations of therapeutic uncertainty in neurology. There is a special importance of the patient’s wishes in decision-making in neurology. However, only in a few cases were advance directives precise and specific enough to have sufficient and decisive weight in therapeutic decision-making. BioMed Central 2021-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8176721/ /pubmed/34088284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02244-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Ilse, Benjamin
Alt-Epping, Bernd
Günther, Albrecht
Liman, Jan
Simon, Alfred
Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series
title Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series
title_full Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series
title_fullStr Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series
title_full_unstemmed Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series
title_short Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series
title_sort clinical ethics consultation in neurology – a case series
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34088284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02244-2
work_keys_str_mv AT ilsebenjamin clinicalethicsconsultationinneurologyacaseseries
AT alteppingbernd clinicalethicsconsultationinneurologyacaseseries
AT guntheralbrecht clinicalethicsconsultationinneurologyacaseseries
AT limanjan clinicalethicsconsultationinneurologyacaseseries
AT simonalfred clinicalethicsconsultationinneurologyacaseseries