A review of clinical ethics consultations in a regional healthcare system over a two-year timeframe.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Graham Anderson, Jacob Hodge, Dean Fox, Stacey Jutila, Catherine McCarty
{"title":"A review of clinical ethics consultations in a regional healthcare system over a two-year timeframe.","authors":"Graham Anderson, Jacob Hodge, Dean Fox, Stacey Jutila, Catherine McCarty","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01129-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical Ethics Consultations (CECs) are used by healthcare systems to offer healthcare practitioners a structured level of support to approach ethical questions. The objective of this study was to detail the elements of surveyed CECs and offer guidance in the approach to future ethics consultations at a regional healthcare system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cohort study has a qualitative and quantitative retrospective approach, surveying ethics consultations through the dates of 4/27/22 to 4/26/24. A documentary sheet was created, and information was entered via online data-gathering forms. The cases are from a range of specialties within a regional healthcare system servicing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>103 CECs were performed within the study period across the regional healthcare system. Consultations were identified through retrospective review of the internal CEC database, and patient information was collected through the medical record. Decision-making was often performed by a substitute decision-maker (N = 54), occurring in 70.1% of cases with known decision makers. CECs were documented in an ethics-specific note in the patient medical record in 37 of 82 (45.1%) documented patient cases. It was common for physicians to mention the ethics consultation in their patient notes, occuring in 51 of 82 (62.2%) of documented patient cases. Age was recorded in 92.0% (N = 91) of unique patient cases; the median age was 62 years. Ethical questions concerning end-of-life care were the most common cause for consultation (N = 35, 34%), and CECs were most commonly requested in general medicine or hospitalist departments (N = 38, 45.2%). Most consultations resulted in resolution at time of initial consultation with the ethics call team.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recommendations for increased frequency and timing of policy review are given based on the results of the data presented. Using interpretation of the CECs in this study, we offer recommendations towards the use and documentation of ethics consultations in the era of open notes, open the door towards areas of future research, and ultimately promote use of CECs for more favorable patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"127"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11549810/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01129-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical Ethics Consultations (CECs) are used by healthcare systems to offer healthcare practitioners a structured level of support to approach ethical questions. The objective of this study was to detail the elements of surveyed CECs and offer guidance in the approach to future ethics consultations at a regional healthcare system.

Methods: This cohort study has a qualitative and quantitative retrospective approach, surveying ethics consultations through the dates of 4/27/22 to 4/26/24. A documentary sheet was created, and information was entered via online data-gathering forms. The cases are from a range of specialties within a regional healthcare system servicing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.

Results: 103 CECs were performed within the study period across the regional healthcare system. Consultations were identified through retrospective review of the internal CEC database, and patient information was collected through the medical record. Decision-making was often performed by a substitute decision-maker (N = 54), occurring in 70.1% of cases with known decision makers. CECs were documented in an ethics-specific note in the patient medical record in 37 of 82 (45.1%) documented patient cases. It was common for physicians to mention the ethics consultation in their patient notes, occuring in 51 of 82 (62.2%) of documented patient cases. Age was recorded in 92.0% (N = 91) of unique patient cases; the median age was 62 years. Ethical questions concerning end-of-life care were the most common cause for consultation (N = 35, 34%), and CECs were most commonly requested in general medicine or hospitalist departments (N = 38, 45.2%). Most consultations resulted in resolution at time of initial consultation with the ethics call team.

Conclusions: Recommendations for increased frequency and timing of policy review are given based on the results of the data presented. Using interpretation of the CECs in this study, we offer recommendations towards the use and documentation of ethics consultations in the era of open notes, open the door towards areas of future research, and ultimately promote use of CECs for more favorable patient outcomes.

对一个地区医疗系统两年来的临床伦理咨询进行回顾。
背景:医疗保健系统采用临床伦理咨询(CEC)为医疗保健从业人员提供结构化支持,帮助他们解决伦理问题。本研究的目的是详细介绍已调查的 CEC 的要素,并为一个地区医疗保健系统今后的伦理咨询方法提供指导:这项队列研究采用了定性和定量的回顾性方法,调查了 4/27/22 至 4/26/24 期间的伦理咨询情况。研究人员制作了记录表,并通过在线数据收集表输入信息。这些病例来自明尼苏达州、威斯康星州和北达科他州地区医疗保健系统的各个专科:在研究期间,该地区医疗系统共进行了 103 次 CEC。通过对内部 CEC 数据库的回顾性审查确定了会诊情况,并通过病历收集了患者信息。决策通常由替代决策者做出(N = 54),在已知决策者的病例中占 70.1%。在 82 例记录在案的患者病历中,有 37 例(45.1%)在伦理专用说明中记录了 CEC。医生在病历中提及伦理会诊的情况很常见,82 例记录在案的患者中有 51 例(62.2%)提及了伦理会诊。92.0%(N=91)的独特病例记录了患者的年龄;年龄中位数为 62 岁。有关临终关怀的伦理问题是最常见的会诊原因(N = 35,34%),而 CEC 最常见于普通内科或住院医师科室(N = 38,45.2%)。大多数会诊在与伦理呼叫小组初次会诊时就得到了解决:结论:根据所提供的数据结果,对增加政策审查的频率和时机提出了建议。通过对本研究中的 CECs 进行解释,我们对开放式笔记时代伦理咨询的使用和记录提出了建议,为未来的研究领域打开了大门,并最终促进了 CECs 的使用,为患者带来了更有利的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信