Search

Physicians generally recommend that patients resuscitated with naloxone after opioid overdose stay in the emergency department for a period of observation in order to prevent harm from delayed sequelae of opioid toxicity. Patients frequently refuse this period of observation despiteenefit to risk. Healthcare providers are thus confronted with the challenge of how best to protect the patient's interests while also respecting autonomy, including assessing whether the patient is making an autonomous choice to refuse care. Previous studies have shown that physicians have widely divergent approaches to navigating these conflicts. This paper reviews what is known about the effects of opioid use disorder on decision-making, and argues that some subset of these refusals are non-autonomous choices, even when patients appear to have decision making capacity. This conclusion has several implications for how physicians assess and respond to patients refusing medical recommendations after naloxone resuscitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2021, a large urban university-based hospital transitioned to a new two-floor emergency department. Despite the new environment, there were usability and workflow challenges with the space. The authors of this paper created a multidisciplinary, human-centered design collaborative of clinicians, university faculty, and students in an effort to increase emergency department efficiency. After thorough design-research and clinician-focused collaboration, the authors and design team identified the need to improve medical supply retrieval time, which directly impacts patient care and clinician satisfaction. The primary interventions consisted of a redesign that is as follows: (a) created standardized icons related to organ system, (b) increased visibility of supply labels, and (c) reorganized supplies based on usage data. Although a successful project, it was not without several barriers discussed in this article, including design researcher and clinician-level setting and engagement, academic/institutional policies, and conflicting schedules. In addition, the lessons learned from implementing human-centered design concepts into clinical workflow sets forth future research opportunities and inspiration for other institutions to collaborate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current national and international guidelines for the ethical design and development of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics emphasize ethical theory. Various governing and advisory bodies have generated sets of broad ethical principles, which institutional decisionmakers are encouraged to apply to particular practical decisions. Although much of this literature examines the ethics of designing and developing AI and robotics, medical institutions typically must make purchase and deployment decisions about technologies that have already been designed and developed. The primary problem facing medical institutions is not one of ethical design but of ethical deployment. The purpose of this paper is to develop a practical model by which medical institutions may make ethical deployment decisions about ready-made advanced technologies. Our slogan is "more process, less principles." Ethically sound decisionmaking requires that the process by which medical institutions make such decisions include participatory, deliberative, and conservative elements. We argue that our model preserves the strengths of existing frameworks, avoids their shortcomings, and delivers its own moral, practical, and epistemic advantages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]