Universal Ethics Evaluation of ICU Patients: A Model.

Background: Clinical ethics consultations are typically provided on a reactive basis and in response to ethical dilemmas or crises. Proactive clinical ethics might be preventative; however proactive ethics has primarily been demonstrated in academic settings with specific patient groups. We propose...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Hospital Ethics Vol. 8; no. 3; pp. 64 - 72
Autores principales: Mayer, Patricia A., McElfresh, Duncan C., Bracamontes, Katherine
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Center for Ethics Oct2022
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=159836608&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 159836608
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        19384955
        FNKI
      jtl: Journal of Hospital Ethics
      issn: 19384955
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2022
      vid: 8
      iid: 3
      pid: 82867
      pub: MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Center for Ethics
      place: Washington, District of Columbia
    artinfo:
      ui:
        159836608
        159836608
        159836608
        159836608
      ppf: 64
      ppct: 8
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Universal Ethics Evaluation of ICU Patients: A Model.
      aug:
        au:
          Mayer, Patricia A.
          McElfresh, Duncan C.
          Bracamontes, Katherine
      sug:
        subj:
          World Health Ethical Issues
          Intensive Care Units Ethical Issues
          Critically Ill Patients Ethical Issues
          Ethics, Medical Evaluation
          Critical Care Ethical Issues
          Human
          Male
          Female
          Adolescence
          Young Adult
          Adult
          Middle Age
          Aged
          Aged, 80 and Over
          Pilot Studies
          Ethicists
          Inpatients
          Funding Source
          Resuscitation Orders
          Durable Power of Attorney
          Advance Care Planning
          Patient Preference
          Conflict (Psychology)
          Retrospective Design
          Costs and Cost Analysis
          Hospitalization
          Outcomes (Health Care)
          Record Review
          Goals and Objectives
          Risk Assessment
          Prevalence
          Resuscitation, Cardiopulmonary
          Descriptive Statistics
          Logistic Regression
          Odds Ratio
          Pearson's Correlation Coefficient
          Adolescent: 13-18 years
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Aged: 65+ years
          Aged, 80 & over
          Male
          Female
      ab: Background: Clinical ethics consultations are typically provided on a reactive basis and in response to ethical dilemmas or crises. Proactive clinical ethics might be preventative; however proactive ethics has primarily been demonstrated in academic settings with specific patient groups. We propose an approach in which every patient in the intensive care unit is screened for specific, actionable ethics-related criteria. Methods: Our methods were developed during a one-year pilot in which a clinical ethicist was embedded in an ICU. The ethicist evaluated as many patients as possible with no explicit selection criteria; three hundred and seventy-three patients were evaluated (39% of all admitted patients). The ethicist used four ethics-related criteria to assess patients for potentially problematic ethical issues: (a) Code Status, (b) presence/absence of Medical Power of Attorney or correctly identified Surrogate Decision Maker (c) presence/absence of Goals/Plan of Care consistent with patient wishes, and (d) presence/absence of Conflict. The time spent by the ethicist was recorded for each patient, and financial impact was evaluated separately by the institution. We retrospectively analyze these ethics-related criteria in conjunction with patient outcomes for the hospitalization. Results and Conclusions: Over two-thirds of the patients had problematic findings on initial evaluation in at least one of the four ethics criteria; 20% had no Code Status selected, 57% had no MPOA or surrogate, 49% had no clear Goals/Plan of Care and 25% had Conflict present. Of the 80% of patients with an initial Code Status, 25% were changed during the hospitalization. 22 % of the patients screened needed no ethics intervention/support, 47% received intermediate support, and 31% required extensive ethics support. Each of the four ethics-related criteria was associated with a greater need for ethics support, and each can be quickly assessed. We hope that our methods will inspire other innovations in clinical ethics consultation services.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N