Cargando…
Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols
BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics case consultations (CECCs) provide a structured approach in situations of ethical uncertainty or conflicts. There have been increasing calls in recent years to assess the quality of CECCs by means of empirical research. This study provides detailed data of a descriptive q...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8305900/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34301238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00668-6 |
_version_ | 1783727682355200000 |
---|---|
author | Nowak, Andre Schildmann, Jan Nadolny, Stephan Heirich, Nicolas Linoh, Kim P. Rosenau, Henning Dutzmann, Jochen Sedding, Daniel Noutsias, Michel |
author_facet | Nowak, Andre Schildmann, Jan Nadolny, Stephan Heirich, Nicolas Linoh, Kim P. Rosenau, Henning Dutzmann, Jochen Sedding, Daniel Noutsias, Michel |
author_sort | Nowak, Andre |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics case consultations (CECCs) provide a structured approach in situations of ethical uncertainty or conflicts. There have been increasing calls in recent years to assess the quality of CECCs by means of empirical research. This study provides detailed data of a descriptive quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a CECC service in a department of cardiology and intensive care at a German university hospital. METHODS: Semi-structured document analysis of CECCs was conducted in the period of November 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. All documents were analysed by two researchers independently. RESULTS: Twenty-four CECCs were requested within the study period, of which most (n = 22; 92%) had been initiated by physicians of the department. The patients were an average of 79 years old (R: 43–96), and 14 (58%) patients were female. The median length of stay prior to request was 12.5 days (R: 1–65 days). The most frequent diagnoses (several diagnoses possible) were cardiology-related (n = 29), followed by sepsis (n = 11) and cancer (n = 6). Twenty patients lacked decisional capacity. The main reason for a CECC request was uncertainty about the balancing of potential benefit and harm related to the medically indicated treatment (n = 18). Further reasons included differing views regarding the best individual treatment option between health professionals and patients (n = 3) or between different team members (n = 3). Consensus between participants could be reached in 18 (75%) consultations. The implementation of a disease specific treatment intervention was recommended in five cases. Palliative care and limitation of further disease specific interventions was recommended in 12 cases. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first in-depth evaluation of a CECC service set up for an academic department of cardiology and intensive medical care. Patient characteristics and the issues deliberated during CECC provide a starting point for the development and testing of more tailored clinical ethics support services and research on CECC outcomes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8305900 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83059002021-07-28 Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols Nowak, Andre Schildmann, Jan Nadolny, Stephan Heirich, Nicolas Linoh, Kim P. Rosenau, Henning Dutzmann, Jochen Sedding, Daniel Noutsias, Michel BMC Med Ethics Research BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics case consultations (CECCs) provide a structured approach in situations of ethical uncertainty or conflicts. There have been increasing calls in recent years to assess the quality of CECCs by means of empirical research. This study provides detailed data of a descriptive quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a CECC service in a department of cardiology and intensive care at a German university hospital. METHODS: Semi-structured document analysis of CECCs was conducted in the period of November 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. All documents were analysed by two researchers independently. RESULTS: Twenty-four CECCs were requested within the study period, of which most (n = 22; 92%) had been initiated by physicians of the department. The patients were an average of 79 years old (R: 43–96), and 14 (58%) patients were female. The median length of stay prior to request was 12.5 days (R: 1–65 days). The most frequent diagnoses (several diagnoses possible) were cardiology-related (n = 29), followed by sepsis (n = 11) and cancer (n = 6). Twenty patients lacked decisional capacity. The main reason for a CECC request was uncertainty about the balancing of potential benefit and harm related to the medically indicated treatment (n = 18). Further reasons included differing views regarding the best individual treatment option between health professionals and patients (n = 3) or between different team members (n = 3). Consensus between participants could be reached in 18 (75%) consultations. The implementation of a disease specific treatment intervention was recommended in five cases. Palliative care and limitation of further disease specific interventions was recommended in 12 cases. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first in-depth evaluation of a CECC service set up for an academic department of cardiology and intensive medical care. Patient characteristics and the issues deliberated during CECC provide a starting point for the development and testing of more tailored clinical ethics support services and research on CECC outcomes. BioMed Central 2021-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8305900/ /pubmed/34301238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00668-6 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 Nowak, Andre Schildmann, Jan Nadolny, Stephan Heirich, Nicolas Linoh, Kim P. Rosenau, Henning Dutzmann, Jochen Sedding, Daniel Noutsias, Michel Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols |
title | Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols |
title_full | Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols |
title_fullStr | Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols |
title_short | Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols |
title_sort | clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8305900/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34301238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00668-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nowakandre clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols AT schildmannjan clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols AT nadolnystephan clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols AT heirichnicolas clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols AT linohkimp clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols AT rosenauhenning clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols AT dutzmannjochen clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols AT seddingdaniel clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols AT noutsiasmichel clinicalethicscaseconsultationinauniversitydepartmentofcardiologyandintensivecareadescriptiveevaluationofconsultationprotocols |