Search

AbstractClinical ethicists are routinely consulted in cases that involve conflicts and uncertainties related to surrogate decision-making for incapacitated patients. To navigate these cases, we invoke a canonical ethical-legal hierarchy of decision-making standards: the patient's known wishes, substituted judgment, and best interest. Despite the routine application of this hierarchy, however, critical scholarly literature alleges that these standards fail to capture patients' preferences and surrogates' behaviors. Moreover, the extent to which these critiques are incorporated into consultant practices is unclear. In this article I thus explore whether, and how, existing critiques of the hierarchy affect the application of these standards during ethics consults. After discussing four critiques of the hierarchy, I examine how two prominent published ethics consultation methodologies-bioethics mediation and CASES-incorporate these critiques differently. I then argue that while both methodologies explicitly endorse the same hierarchy, the varying degrees to which these four criticisms are incorporated into the prescribed consultation process could produce different applications of the same standard. I demonstrate with a case study how an ethics consultant following either methodology might produce two substantively different recommendations despite using the same substituted judgment standard. I conclude that while this heterogeneity of application should not dismantle the hierarchy's status as field-wide canon, it complicates projects of professional ethics consultation consensus building.

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., (Copyright 2020 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

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.

Ongoing evaluation of a clinical ethics consultation service (ECS) allows for continuous quality improvement, a process-based, data-driven approach for improving the quality of a service. Evaluations by stakeholders involved in a consultation can provide real-time feedback about what is working well and what might need to be improved. Although numerous authors have previously presented data from research studies on the effectiveness of clinical ethics consultation, few ECSs routinely send evaluations as an ongoing component of their everyday clinical activities. The primary purpose of this article is to equip and encourage others to engage in ongoing evaluation of their own ECS. Toward that end, the following resources are shared: (1) the survey tool used to gather the evaluation data, (2) the procedure used to elicit and collate responses, and (3) how the resulting data are used to support continuous quality improvement and justify the continued financial support of the ECS to hospital administration., (Copyright 2017 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

For all of the emphasis on quality improvement-as well as the acknowledged overlap between assessment of the quality of healthcare services and clinical ethics-the quality of clinical ethics consultation has received scant attention, especially in terms of empirical measurement. Recognizing this need, the second edition of Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation1 identified four domains of ethics quality: (1) ethicality, (2) stakeholders' satisfaction, (3) resolution of the presenting conflict/dilemma, and (4) education that translates into knowledge. This study is the first, to our knowledge, to directly measure all of these domains. Here we describe the quality improvement process undertaken at a tertiary care academic medical center, as well as the tools developed to measure the quality of ethics consultation, which include post-consultation satisfaction surveys and weekly case conferences. The information gained through these tools helps to improve not only the process of ethics consultation, but also the measurement and assurance of quality., (Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical ethics consultants are expected to "reduce disparities, discrimination, and inequities when providing consultations," but few studies about inequities in ethics consultation exist.1 The objectives of this study were (1) to determine if there were racial or gender differences in the timing of requests for ethics consultations related to limiting treatment, and (2) if such differences were found, to identify factors associated with that difference and the role, if any, of ethics consultants in mitigating them., Methods: The study was a mixed methods retrospective study of consultation summaries and hospital and ethics center data on 56 age-and gender-matched Caucasian and African American Medicare patients who received ethics consultations related to issues around limiting medical treatment in the period 2011 to 2014. The average age of patients was 70.9., Results: Consultation requests for females were made significantly earlier in their stays in the hospital (6.57 days) than were consultation requests made for males (16.07 days). For African American patients, the differences in admission-to-request intervals for female patients (5.93 days) and male patients (18.64 days) were greater than for Caucasian male and female patients. Differences in the timing of a consultation were not significantly correlated with the presence of an advance directive, the specialty of the attending physician, or the reasons for the consult request. Ethics consultants may have mitigated problems that developed during the lag in request times for African American males by spending more time, on average, on those consultations (316 minutes), especially more time, on average, than on consultations with Caucasian females (195 minutes). Most consultations (40 of 56) did result in movement toward limiting treatment, but no statistically significant differences were found among the groups studied in the movement toward limiting treatment. The average number of days from consult to discharge or death were strongly correlated with the intervals between admission to the hospital and request for an ethics consultation., Conclusion: Our findings suggest race and gender disparities in the timing of ethics consultations that consultants may have partially mitigated., (Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

This qualitative social scientific interview study delves into the ways in which professional vision is constructed in clinical ethics consultation (CEC). The data consist of 11 semi-structured interviews that were conducted with clinical ethics consultants currently working in hospitals in one major urban area in the U.S. The interviews were analyzed with the qualitative research method of critical discourse analysis, with a focus on identifying the cultural structures of knowledge that shape CEC as a professional practice. The discourses were first identified as belonging to two higher discourse categories, order and agency. Order was divided into three lower categories, emotional, managerial, and rational order, and discourses of agency into the lower categories of exploration, technique, deliberation, and distancing. An additional discourse of neutral interaction was identified as a bridging discourse, activated to level tensions emerging out of conflicting goals and agencies embedded in CEC practice. This analysis brings out as its main observation that clinical ethics consultants draw on and shift between potentially ideologically conflicting social positions that can create built-in tensions within the professional domain. The study calls attention to these tensions and suggests for the professional group to discuss the possibility of defining priorities between different kinds of order, identified in this study, that shape the CEC domain., (Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

The idea of patient advocacy as a function of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) has been debated in the bioethics literature. In particular, opinion is divided as to whether patient advocacy inherently is in conflict with the other duties of the ethics consultant, especially that of impartial mediator. The debate is complicated, however, because patient advocacy is not uniformly conceptualized. This article examines two literatures that are crucial to understanding patient advocacy in the context of bioethical deliberations: the CEC literature and the literature on advocacy in the social work profession. A review of this literature identifies four distinct approaches to patient advocacy that are relevant to CEC: (1) the best interest approach, (2) the patient rights approach, (3) the representational approach, and (4) the empowerment approach. After providing a clearer understanding of the varied meanings of patient advocacy in the context of CEC, we assert that patient advocacy is not inherently inconsistent with the function of the ethics consultant and the CEC process. Finally, we provide a framework to help consultants determine if they should adopt an advocacy role., (Copyright 2016 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Mediators utilize a wide range of skills in the process of facilitating dialogue and resolving conflicts. Among the most useful techniques for clinical ethics consultants (CECs)-and surely the least discussed-are those employed in acrimonious, hostile conversations between stakeholders. In the context of clinical ethics disputes or other bedside conflicts, good mediation skills can reverse the negative interactions that have prevented the creation of workable treatment plans or ethical consensus. This essay lays out the central framework mediators use in distinguishing positions from interests and describes a set of strategies for managing contentious ethics consultations or working with "difficult" patients, families, or patient-careprovider interactions., (Copyright 2015 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Bioethics mediators manage a wide range of clinical conflict emanating from diverse sources. Parties to clinical conflict are often not fully aware of, nor willing to express, the true nature and scope of their conflict. As such, a significant task of the bioethics mediator is to help define that conflict. The ability to assess and apply the tools necessary for an effective mediation process can be facilitated by each mediator's creation of a personal compendium of sources that generate clinical conflict, to provide an orientation for the successful management of complex dilemmatic cases., (Copyright 2015 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Professional mediators have long possessed a skill set that is uniquely suited to facilitation of difficult conversations between and among individuals in emotionally charged situations. This skill set has increasingly been recognized as invaluable to the work of clinical ethics consultants as they navigate conflicts involving families, surrogates, and providers. Given widespread acknowledgment that communication difficulties lie at the root of many clinical ethics conflicts, mediation offers techniques to enhance communication between conflicting parties. This special section of The Journal of Clinical Ethics focuses on core aspects of the mediation process designed for effective management of clinical conflict emanating from communication breakdowns, highly charged value conflicts, and instances of perceived disrespect., (Copyright 2015 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

A proposal by the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) to identify individuals who are qualified to perform ethics consultations neglects case complexity in candidates' portfolios. To protect patients and healthcare organizations, and to be fair to candidates, a minimum case complexity level must be clearly and publicly articulated. This proof-of-concept study supports the feasibility of assessing case complexity. Using text analytics, we developed a complexity scoring system, and retrospectively analyzed more than 500 ethics summaries of consults performed at an academic medical center during 2013. We demonstrate its use with seven case summaries that range in complexity from uncomplicated to very complicated. We encourage the ASBH to require a minimum level of case complexity, and recommend that attestation portfolios include several cases of moderate complexity and at least one very complex case., (Copyright 2015 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

In current practice, decisions regarding whether or not to resuscitate infants born at the limits of viability are generally made with expectant parents during a prenatal consultation with a neonatologist. This article reviews the current practice of prenatal consultation and describes three areas in which current practice is ethically problematic: (1) risks to competence, (2) risks to information, and (3) risks to trust. It then reviews solutions that have been suggested in the literature, and the drawbacks to each. Finally, it suggests that the model of prenatal consultation be altered in three ways: (1) that the prenatal consultation be viewed as a process over time, rather than a onetime event; (2) that decision making in the prenatal consultation be framed as a choice between nonresuscitation and a trial of neonatal intensive care, rather than a choice between "doing nothing" and "doing everything"; and (3) that the prenatal consultation process devote serious attention to both the transfer of information and the non-informational needs of families, rather than focus on the transfer of information alone., (Copyright 2015 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

How might clinicians best try to retain the trust of patients and family members after clinicians oppose giving a treatment? If clinicians can maintain the trust of patients and families in these situations, this may soften what may be the greatest possible loss--the death of a loved one. I discuss what clinicians seeking to retain trust should not do--namely impose their values and reason wrongly--and introduce strategies that clinicians may use to reduce both. I present five principles that clinicians can follow to try to retain trust, with examples that illustrate each. I suggest specific interventions that clinicians can make, especially when they anticipate that a patient and/or family may, in time, want a treatment that is futile., (Copyright 2015 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

In light of the ongoing development and implementation of core competencies in bioethics, it is important to proceed with a clear sense of how bioethics knowledge is utilized in the functioning of hospital ethics committees (HECs). Without such an understanding, we risk building a costly edifice on a foundation that is ambiguous at best. This article examines the empirical relationship between traditional paradigms of bioethics theory and actual decision making by HEC members using survey data from HEC members. The assumption underlying the standardization of qualifications and corresponding call for increased education of HEC members is that they will base imminent case decisions on inculcated knowledge. Our data suggest, however, that HEC members first decide intuitively and then look for justification, thereby highlighting the need to re-examine the pedagogical processes of ethics education in the process of standardizing and improving competencies., (Copyright 2015 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

A first principle in ethics consultation is that reasoning is essential. A second principle is that the religious and cultural views of patients and their surrogates are usually respected. What can be done when these principles collide-when patients or surrogates have religious or cultural views and beliefs that clinicians find unreasonable or even offensive? Mediation may provide some approaches to assist us in providing the most ethically appropriate assistance., (Copyright 2014 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Existing state surrogate decision-maker laws are fragmented and inconsistent and fail to ensure that all eligible decision makers of the same surrogate priority class are included in the healthcare decisions made for an incapacitated loved one. In this article, we explore three categories of harm that result from failing to include all surrogates of equal priority in a patient's healthcare decision, namely harms to the patient, harms to the excluded surrogate, and harms to the family. Given these harms, we argue that clinical ethicists have a moral obligation to take reasonable steps to include all surrogate decision makers of equal priority in the healthcare decision-making process for patients without a designated healthcare proxy., (Copyright 2014 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Checklists have been used to improve quality in many industries, including healthcare. The use of checklists, however, has not been extensively evaluated in clinical ethics consultation. This article seeks to fill this gap by exploring the efficacy of using a checklist in ethics consultation, as tested by an empirical investigation of the use of the checklist at a large academic medical system (Cleveland Clinic). The specific aims of this project are as follows: (1) to improve the quality of ethics consultations by providing reminders to ethics consultants about process steps that are important for most patient-centered ethics consultations, (2) to create consistency in the ethics consultation process across the medical system, and (3) to establish an effective educational tool for trainers and trainees in clinical ethics consultation. The checklist was developed after a thorough literature review and an iterative process of revising and testing by a group of experienced ethics consultants. To pilot test the checklist, it was distributed to 46 ethics consultants. After a six-month pilot period in which ethics professionals used the checklist during their clinical activities, a survey was distributed to all of those who used the checklist. The 10-item survey examined consultants' perceptions regarding the three aims listed above. Of the 25 survey respondents, 11 self-reported as experts in ethics consultation, nine perceived themselves to have mid-level expertise, and five self-reported as novices. The majority (68 percent) of all respondents, regardless of expertise, believed that the checklist could be a "helpful" or "very helpful" tool in the consultation process generally. Novices were more likely than experts to believe that the checklist would be useful in conducting consultations. The limitations of this study include: reduced generalizability given that this project was conducted at one medical system, utilized a small sample size, and used self-reported quality outcome measures. Despite these limitations, to the authors' knowledge this is the first investigation of the use of a checklist systematically to improve quality in ethics consultation. Importantly, our findings shed light on ways this checklist can be used to improve ethics consultation, including its use as an educational tool. The authors hope to test the checklist with consultants in other healthcare systems to explore its usefulness in different healthcare environments., (Copyright 2014 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

"Chiaroscuro" is a art technique that makes use of light and shade to suggest depth and solidity on a flat surface. I argue that the standards regarding accountability in the second edition of the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation (CC2), are chiaroscuro, because, despite the offered lists of competencies, it is very difficult to imagine how consultants might be held accountable to such standards. It is not clear to which of the many suggested standards a consultant should be held accountable, and even if one stipulates that only the tabulated competencies are meant as standards, the vague wording makes it hard to know how a consultant might fail to meet the standards or perform excellently. In addition, because terms such as "ethics" and "ethical" are not defined in the document, we are left with no way to determine whether consultants have made appropriate recommendations.The document is useful as a point of discussion, but not yet ready to serve as a tool for holding practitioners accountable.

Members of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Standing Committee of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities present a collection of insights and recommendations developed from their collective experience, intended for those engaged in the work of healthcare ethics consultation.

We present the case of a 36-year-old woman who has experienced three lost pregnancies; during the most recent loss, a full term pregnancy, she almost died from complications of placental abruption. She is now completing the 34th week of gestation and is experiencing symptoms similar to those under which she lost the previous pregnancy. Despite a lack of specific medical indications, the patient and her husband firmly but politely request that the attending obstetrician/perinatologist perform an immediate cesarean section in order to alleviate the couple's anxiety about possibly never having a family. Discussing the case are an experienced perinatologist, a neonatologist, a regional perinatal center coordinator, and a clinical ethicist.

This article discusses a case in this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics by McCrary and colleagues, "Elective Delivery Before 39 Weeks' Gestation Reconciling Maternal, Fetal, and Family Circumstances," in which parents asked the medical team to deliver their fetus "early." The author discusses (1) the importance that parents have to a child when they are able to love the child, and how important it is for decision makers to consider this; (2) exceptional approaches that may enable parents to "change their minds"; and (3) substantive and procedural innovations that may help to prevent clinicians' views from playing too big a role and/or being arbitrary. The author concludes by describing how he felt when reading the case and uses this to illustrate how clinicians may benefit by assessing their feelings.

Articles in this issue of JCE recommend a number of approaches to clinical ethics consultation. Given these various approaches, how should ethics consultants proceed?

Clinical ethics consultation is on the horns of a dilemma. One horn skewers the field for its lack of standards, while the other horn skewers it for proposing arbitrary or deeply contested foundations. I articulate the dilemma by discussing several critiques of the field and the challenge of formulating standards and suggest that the solution lies, at least until a robust consensus emerges, with establishing a list of proscriptive standards to guide the field.

The model of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) defended in the ASBH Core Competencies report has gained significant traction among scholars and healthcare providers. On this model, the aim of CEC is to facilitate deliberative reflection and thereby resolve conflicts and clarify value uncertainty by invoking and pursuing a process of consensus building. It is central to the model that the facilitated consensus falls within a range of allowable options, defined by societal values: prevailing legal requirements, widely endorsed organizational policies, and professional standards of practice and codes of conduct. Moreover, the model stipulates that ethics consultants must refrain from giving substantive recommendations regarding how parties to a moral disagreement in the clinic should evaluate their options. We argue that this model of CEC is incomplete, because it wrongly assumes that what counts as the proper set of allowable options among which the parties are to deliberate will itself always be clearly discernible. We illustrate this problem with a recent case on which one of us consulted-a neonate born with trisomy 18 (T18). We try to show that law, policy, and standards of practice reveal no clear answer to the question posed by the case: namely, whether forgoing gastrostomy tube feedings for a baby with T18 is allowable. We suggest there may be other kinds of cases in which it may simply be unsettled whether a given choice falls within the set of allowable options within which consensus is to be facilitated. What should an ethicist do when confronting such unsettled cases? We agree with the facilitation model that an ethicist should remain neutral among the allowable options, when it is clear what the allowable options are. But, in unsettled cases, the role of a consultant should be expanded to include a process of moral inquiry into what the allowable options should be. We end by raising the issue of whether this means an ethicist should share his or her own conclusions or views about the allowability of a given clinical option.

After falling from a roof, an older man lost neurological function below his face. In two days, the patient regained consciousness, but it was unclear whether he could communicate his preferences, whether due to injuries or difficulties with language. His family believed he could communicate with them, and that he was capable of making treatment decisions. The staff did not think to contact the hospital's largely inactive ethics consultation service for assistance, and instead looked to the patient's living will for guidance, even though the patient was not terminally ill, and his lack of capacity had not been determined.

Ethics consultation services provide support to staff, patients, and family members who find themselves in morally difficult situations in healthcare settings. Not unlike other clinical consultation services, ethics consultation activities should be well documented. Good documentation allows for evaluation of the consultation process and the ability to refer back to consults when needed, and provides data for future research in healthcare ethics (HCE). In our exploration of existing HCE documentation systems, we identified two main points of interest. First, HCE information documentation systems are powerful tools for providing information on ethics consultation services.These documentation systems can be used to produce detailed reports on various HCE activities both institutionally and cross-institutionally. Second, our findings indicate greater agreement in the language and terminology of HCE needs to be established. Cultivation of such common language is needed in order to develop a standard healthcare ethicists can use to document and categorize consults. Standardization of language would allow data to be readily comparable and lead to more consistency in documentation of ethics consultations. Ultimately, standardization of documentation can also constitute a standard of practice for HCE in general.The development of such standards is essential for any developing profession, and will be required for HCE as it moves in towards professionalization in Canada.

Most hospitals and nursing homes have individuals who engage in ethics consultation, and most do so with very little, if any, training. The goal of this article is not to advance the scholarly literature on training clinical ethics consultants, but instead to provide a road map for individuals doing ethics consultation who would like more training. In this way, I hope to advance the field in some small way, by educating, empowering, and encouraging small- to medium-sized hospitals to train the members of their ethics committee who engage in ethics consultation.

Attention to the ethical concerns of healthcare aides can provide important information about patients' needs to careproviders, improve the ethical environment of an institution, and benefit aides who suffer from bearing ethical concerns alone. All persons benefit from sharing their ethical concerns with others. Among other benefits, ethics consultation offers careproviders, caregivers, healthcare aides, patients, and patients' loved ones an opportunity to have their concerns heard. John Fletcher tried to follow every ethics consultation with a debriefing for all participants, including patients and family members, to increase the possibility for continued healing after the conclusion of the consultation, and there are good reasons to follow this practice.

The author suggests that a "first generation" task in bioethics is to give patients the information they need; a "second generation" task is to do this in the most effective way; and a "third generation" task is to avoid harming patients by imposing value biases. The author discusses ways to pursue this third generation task.