Search

Clinical ethics consultation services (CECS) can be particularly complex in oncology, and widespread misconceptions exist about their nature. As a result, visibility and accessibility of information regarding CECS is critical. We investigated the availability and content of information regarding CECS on websites of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and cancer centers (CCs). Each website was reviewed for information on CECS and reviewed for benchmarks partially derived from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities recommendations for CECS. Our analysis revealed that of 70 NCI-designated center websites, 38 had information on CECS, and 17 were found directly on these sites. When CECS information was available, most websites provided a mission statement (71%) and an explanation of what constitutes an ethics consult (74%). Few provided a description of the consult process (45%) or service membership (39%). Our findings reveal a significant gap in CECS visibility on the websites of NCI-designated CCs., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objectives: To determine the number of top-ranked U.S. academic institutions that require ethics consultation for specific adult clinical circumstances (e.g., family requests for potentially inappropriate treatment) and to detail those circumstances and the specific clinical scenarios for which consultations are mandated., Design: Cross-sectional survey study, conducted online or over the phone between July 2016 and October 2017., Setting: We identified the top 50 research medical schools through the 2016 U.S. News and World Report rankings. The primary teaching hospital for each medical school was included., Subjects: The chair/director of each hospital's adult clinical ethics committee, or a suitable alternate representative familiar with ethics consultation services, was identified for study recruitment., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: A representative from the adult ethics consultation service at each of the 50 target hospitals was identified. Thirty-six of 50 sites (72%) consented to participate in the study, and 18 (50%) reported having at least one current mandatory consultation policy. Of the 17 sites that completed the survey and listed their triggers for mandatory ethics consultations, 20 trigger scenarios were provided, with three sites listing two distinct clinical situations. The majority of these triggers addressed family requests for potentially inappropriate treatment (9/20, 45%) or medical decision-making for unrepresented patients lacking decision-making capacity (7/20, 35%). Other triggers included organ donation after circulatory death, initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, denial of valve replacement in patients with subacute bacterial endocarditis, and posthumous donation of sperm. Twelve (67%) of the 18 sites with mandatory policies reported that their protocol(s) was formally documented in writing., Conclusions: Among top-ranked academic medical centers, the existence and content of official policies regarding situations that mandate ethics consultations are variable. This finding suggests that, despite recent critical care consensus guidelines recommending institutional review as standard practice in particular scenarios, formal adoption of such policies has yet to become widespread and uniform.

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., (© 2019 The Hastings Center.)

Background: Few studies have been conducted to assess the quality of orientation practices for ethics advisory committees that conduct ethics consultation. This survey study focused on several Harvard teaching hospitals, exploring orientation quality and committee members' self-evaluation in the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) ethics consultation competencies., Methods: We conducted a survey study that involved 116 members and 16 chairs of ethics advisory committees, respectively (52% and 62.5% response rates). Predictor variables included professional demographics, duration on committees and level of training. Outcome variables included familiarity with and preparedness in the ASBH competencies and satisfaction with orientations. We hypothesised that responses would be associated with both the aforementioned predictors and whether or not participants had encountered the ASBH competencies in training., Results: A majority of respondents found their orientation curricula to be helpful (62%), although a significant portion of respondents did not receive any orientation (24%) or were unsatisfied with their orientation (14%). Familiarity with ASBH competencies was a statistically significant predictor of respondents' self-evaluation in particular categories (54% had heard of the competencies). Standard educational materials were reported as offered during orientation, such as readings (50%) and case studies (41%); different medium resources were less evidenced such as videos on ethics consultation (19%)., Conclusions: Institutions should re-evaluate orientation practices for ethics committee members that perform ethics consultation. Integrating ASBH competencies and useful methods into a resourceful pedagogy will help improve both member satisfaction with orientation and preparation in consultation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

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.)

Although clinical ethics consultation is a high-stakes endeavor with an increasing prominence in health care systems, progress in developing standards for quality is challenging. In this article, we describe the results of a pilot project utilizing portfolios as an evaluation tool. We found that this approach is feasible and resulted in a reasonably wide distribution of scores among the 23 submitted portfolios that we evaluated. We discuss limitations and implications of these results, and suggest that this is a significant step on the pathway to an eventual certification process for clinical ethics consultants.

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.)

For decades a debate has played out in the literature about who bioethicists are, what they do, whether they can be considered professionals qua bioethicists, and, if so, what professional responsibilities they are called to uphold. Health care ethics consultants are bioethicists who work in health care settings. They have been seeking guidance documents that speak to their special relationships/duties toward those they serve. By approving a Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Health Care Ethics Consultants, the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) has moved the professionalization debate forward in a significant way. This first code of ethics focuses on individuals who provide health care ethics consultation (HCEC) in clinical settings. The evolution of the code's development, implications for the field of HCEC and bioethics, and considerations for future directions are presented here.

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.)

Background: The growing prevalence of health care ethics consultation (HCEC) services in the U.S. has been accompanied by an increase in calls for accountability and quality assurance, and for the debates surrounding why and how HCEC is evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of HCEC as indicated by several novel outcome measurements in East Asian medical encounters., Methods: Patients with medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues, and requests made by the attending physicians or nurses for HCEC from December 1, 2009 to April 30, 2012 were randomly assigned to the usual care group (UC group) and the intervention group (HCEC group). The patients in the HCEC group received HCEC conducted by an individual ethics consultant. Data analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. Mann-Whitney test and Chi-squared test were used depending on the scale of measurement., Results: Thirty-three patients (53.23%) were randomly assigned to the HCEC group and 29 patients were randomly assigned to the UC group. Among the 33 patients in the HCEC group, two (6.06%) of them ultimately did not receive a HCEC service. Among the 29 patients in the UC group, four (13.79%) of them received a HCEC service. The survival rate at hospital discharge did not differ between the two groups. Patients in the HCEC group showed significant reductions in the entire ICU stay and entire hospital stay. HCEC significantly facilitated achieving the goal of medical care (p < .01). Furthermore, patients in the HCEC group had a shorter ICU stay and shorter hospital stay after the occurrence of medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues than those in the UC group., Conclusions: Our findings demonstrated that HCEC were associated with reduced consumption of medical resources as indicated by shorter entire ICU stay, entire hospital stay, and shorter ICU and hospital stay after the occurrence of the medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues. This study also showed that HCEC facilitated achieving a consensus regarding the goal of medical care, which conforms to the goal of HCEC.

Ethics consultation has become an integral part of the fabric of U.S. health care delivery. This article summarizes the second edition of the Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation report of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. The core knowledge and skills competencies identified in the first edition of Core Competencies have been adopted by various ethics consultation services and education programs, providing evidence of their endorsement as health care ethics consultation (HCEC) standards. This revised report was prompted by thinking in the field that has evolved since the original report. Patients, family members, and health care providers who encounter ethical questions or concerns that ethics consultants could help address deserve access to efficient, effective, and accountable HCEC services. All individuals providing such services should be held to the standards of competence and quality described in the revised report.

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.

Over the past 30 years, and increasingly over the past decade, palliative care services characteristically address the complexity of communication, decision making, and management of end-of-life issues for patients and families of all ages. Clinical ethics services have a parallel 30-plus year history in the United States-so much so that some have offered that clinical ethics has "cut its teeth" on issues attendant to the beginning and end of life. The authors propose considerations necessary in determining the appropriateness of consultation with palliative care, clinical ethics, or both, and when either may be necessary but perhaps not sufficient for patient and family management. A resolution for any encountered tension and identification of common or overlapping domains for both consultants is presented.

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.

Guiding our response in this essay is our view that current efforts to demarcate the role of the clinical ethicist risk reducing its complex network of authorizations to sites of power and payment. In turn, the role becomes susceptible to various ideologies-individualisms, proceduralisms, secularisms-that further divide the body from the web of significances that matter to that body, where only she, the patient, is located. The security of policy, standards, and employment will pull against and eventually sever the authorization secured by authentic moral inquiry. Instead of asking "What do I need to know?", the question animating the drive to standardize will be "What is the policy or standard?" The claims of the authors in this issue of HEC Forum confirm these suspicions.