Ethics Consultation in Surgical Specialties.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Hec Forum Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-05 DOI:10.1007/s10730-021-09447-7
Nicole A Meredyth, Joseph J Fins, Inmaculada de Melo-Martin
{"title":"Ethics Consultation in Surgical Specialties.","authors":"Nicole A Meredyth,&nbsp;Joseph J Fins,&nbsp;Inmaculada de Melo-Martin","doi":"10.1007/s10730-021-09447-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Multiple studies have been performed to identify the most common ethical dilemmas encountered by ethics consultation services. However, limited data exists comparing the content of ethics consultations requested by specific hospital specialties. It remains unclear whether the scope of ethical dilemmas prompting an ethics consultation differ between specialties and if there are types of ethics consultations that are more or less frequently called based on the specialty initiating the ethics consult. This study retrospectively assessed the incidence and content of ethics consultations called by surgical vs. non-surgical specialties between January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018 using our RedCap Database and information collected through the EMR via our Clinical and Translational Science Center. 548 total ethics consultations were analyzed (surgical n = 135, non-surgical n = 413). Our results demonstrate that more surgical consults originated from the ICU, as opposed to lower acuity units (45.9% vs. 14.3%, p ≤ 0.001), and surgical patients were more likely to have a DNR in place (37.5% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.002). Surgical specialties were more likely to call about issues relating to withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (p ≤ 0.001), while non-surgical specialties were more likely to call about issues related to discharge planning (p = 0.001). There appear to be morally relevant differences between consults classified as the \"same\" that are not entirely captured by the usual ethics consultations classification system. In conclusion, this study highlights the unique ethical issues experienced by surgical vs. non-surgical specialties. Ultimately, our data can help ethics consultation services determine how best to educate various hospital specialties to approach ethical issues commonly experienced within their field.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10730-021-09447-7","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-021-09447-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Multiple studies have been performed to identify the most common ethical dilemmas encountered by ethics consultation services. However, limited data exists comparing the content of ethics consultations requested by specific hospital specialties. It remains unclear whether the scope of ethical dilemmas prompting an ethics consultation differ between specialties and if there are types of ethics consultations that are more or less frequently called based on the specialty initiating the ethics consult. This study retrospectively assessed the incidence and content of ethics consultations called by surgical vs. non-surgical specialties between January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2018 using our RedCap Database and information collected through the EMR via our Clinical and Translational Science Center. 548 total ethics consultations were analyzed (surgical n = 135, non-surgical n = 413). Our results demonstrate that more surgical consults originated from the ICU, as opposed to lower acuity units (45.9% vs. 14.3%, p ≤ 0.001), and surgical patients were more likely to have a DNR in place (37.5% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.002). Surgical specialties were more likely to call about issues relating to withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (p ≤ 0.001), while non-surgical specialties were more likely to call about issues related to discharge planning (p = 0.001). There appear to be morally relevant differences between consults classified as the "same" that are not entirely captured by the usual ethics consultations classification system. In conclusion, this study highlights the unique ethical issues experienced by surgical vs. non-surgical specialties. Ultimately, our data can help ethics consultation services determine how best to educate various hospital specialties to approach ethical issues commonly experienced within their field.

外科专业伦理咨询。
已经进行了多项研究,以确定道德咨询服务遇到的最常见的道德困境。然而,比较特定医院专科要求的伦理咨询内容的数据有限。目前尚不清楚促使伦理咨询的伦理困境的范围是否在专业之间有所不同,以及是否存在基于发起伦理咨询的专业或多或少经常调用的伦理咨询类型。本研究回顾性评估了2013年1月1日至2018年12月31日期间外科与非外科专业伦理咨询的发生率和内容,使用我们的RedCap数据库和临床与转化科学中心通过EMR收集的信息,共分析了548次伦理咨询(外科n = 135,非外科n = 413)。我们的研究结果表明,更多的手术咨询来自ICU,而不是低锐度病房(45.9%比14.3%,p≤0.001),手术患者更有可能有DNR(37.5%比22.2%,p = 0.002)。外科专科更倾向于询问有关停止/停止维持生命治疗的问题(p≤0.001),而非外科专科更倾向于询问有关出院计划的问题(p = 0.001)。在被分类为“相同”的咨询人员之间似乎存在道德上的相关差异,这些差异并没有完全被通常的道德咨询分类系统所捕获。总之,本研究突出了外科与非外科专科所经历的独特伦理问题。最终,我们的数据可以帮助伦理咨询服务决定如何最好地教育各医院专科处理他们领域内普遍遇到的伦理问题。
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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
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