Search

Introduction: While Learning Healthcare Systems (LHSs) have received increasing attention in health care and research, the amount of operational LHSs remains limited. Given the investment of resources in these projects, a moral responsibility to pursue the transition toward an LHS falls on projects and their participating stakeholders. This paper provides an ethics framework for projects that have taken steps toward building an LHS and are in the position to transition to an operational LHS. Method: To articulate relevant ethical requirements, we analyze established ethics frameworks in the fields of LHSs, data‐intensive health research, and transitioning or innovating health systems. The overlapping content and shared values are used to articulate overarching ethical requirements. To provide necessary context, we apply the insights from the analysis to the Innovative Medicines Initiative ConcePTION project. This project is specifically designed to generate knowledge on the safety of medications used during pregnancy and lactation through the establishment of an LHS. Results: Upon analyzing the consulted frameworks, we identified four overlapping ethical requirements that are also of significant relevance within the scope of our ethics framework. These requirements are: (1) public benefit and favorable harm–benefit ratio; (2) equity and justice; (3) stakeholder engagement; and (4) sustainability. Additionally, we apply these ethical requirements to the context of an LHS for pregnant and lactating people. Conclusion: Although tailored to the context of pregnancy and lactation, our ethics framework can provide guidance for the transition to an operational LHS across diverse healthcare domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning supports patients to reflect on and discuss preferences for future treatment and care. Studies of the impact of advance care planning on healthcare use and healthcare costs are scarce. Aim: To determine the impact on healthcare use and costs of an advance care planning intervention across six European countries. Design: Cluster-randomised trial, registered as ISRCTN63110516, of advance care planning conversations supported by certified facilitators. Setting/participants: Patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from 23 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK. Data on healthcare use were collected from hospital medical files during 12 months after inclusion. Results: Patients with a good performance status were underrepresented in the intervention group (p < 0.001). Intervention and control patients spent on average 9 versus 8 days in hospital (p = 0.07) and the average number of X-rays was 1.9 in both groups. Fewer intervention than control patients received systemic cancer treatment; 79% versus 89%, respectively (p < 0.001). Total average costs of hospital care during 12 months follow-up were €32,700 for intervention versus €40,700 for control patients (p = 0.04 with bootstrap analyses). Multivariable multilevel models showed that lower average costs of care in the intervention group related to differences between study groups in country, religion and WHO-status. No effect of the intervention on differences in costs between study groups was observed (p = 0.3). Conclusions: Lower care costs as observed in the intervention group were mainly related to patients' characteristics. A definite impact of the intervention itself could not be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00646.x Byline: RIEKE VAN DER GRAAF (1), JOHANNES JM VAN DELDEN (1) Keywords: conceptual clarification; dignity; euthanasia; history; human dignity; research ethics; respect for autonomy Abstract: ABSTRACT Over the past few decades the concept of (human) dignity has deeply pervaded medical ethics. Appeals to dignity, however, are often unclear. As a result some prefer to eliminate the concept from medical ethics, whereas others try to render it useful in this context. We think that appeals to dignity in medical ethics can be clarified by considering the concept from an historical perspective. Firstly, on the basis of historical texts we propose a framework for defining the concept in medical debates. The framework shows that dignity can occur in a relational, an unconditional, a subjective and a Kantian form. Interestingly, all forms relate to one concept since they have four features in common: dignity refers, in a restricted sense, to the 'special status of human beings'; it is based on essential human characteristics; the subject of dignity should live up to it; and it is a vulnerable concept, it can be lost or violated. We argue that being explicit about the meaning of dignity will prevent dignity from becoming a conversation-stopper in moral debate. Secondly, an historical perspective on dignity shows that it is not yet time to dispose of dignity in medical ethics. At least Kantian and relational dignity can be made useful in medical ethics. Author Affiliation: (1)Julius center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical center, Utrecht Article note: Rieke van der Graaf, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Huispost STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands. E-mail: r.vandergraaf@umcutrecht.nl, Telephone 00 31 88 756 8640, Fax 00 31 88 756 8099