RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Second victim syndrome (SVS) is described as when health care providers encounter significant moral distress after traumatic patient care events. Although broadly recognized in medicine, this remains underrecognized in surgery and no systemic approaches exist to mitigate potential harms of SVS amongst surgeons. When SVS is left unaddressed, surgeons not only suffer personal psychological harm but their ability to care for future patients can also be compromised. The aim was to examine surgeons' perceptions and attitudes regarding mitigation of SVS. STUDY DESIGN: This study was conducted at a tertiary-care university hospital using a mixed-methods approach coupling quantitative and qualitative assessments including a 13-item survey, follow-up focus group, and semi-structured interviews The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for quantitative analysis and content analysis used to report qualitative findings. RESULTS: Surgeons believe SVS is a universal experience amongst surgeons that healthcare institutions have a moral obligation to address. Surgeons further believe that any effective mitigation strategy must receive legal protection similar to morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences. The culture, tenor, and tone of review processes after surgical complications can either reduce or exacerbate the burden of SVS. Successful interventions must be easily accessible, voluntary, and culturally acceptable. Furthermore, surgeons may suffer greater SVS compared with non-procedural physicians as adverse events can be inevitable in operation and may potentially be a high frequency outcome depending on patient population. CONCLUSION: Surgeons agreed that healthcare organizations have a moral imperative to assist surgeons in navigating the psychosocial impacts of SVS after adverse surgical outcomes. The success of mitigation strategies was viewed as ethically relevant to patients and surgeons and dependent on the culture, tenor, and tone of the process.

RESUMEN

An infant with nonsyndromic craniosynostosis is brought to clinic by his Jehovah's Witness parents to discuss treatment. Five potential courses of action are discussed in the context of biomedical ethics principles. The potential conflict between parents' autonomy to make decisions for their child and the surgeon's ethical duty of beneficence to the patient is explored.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we seek to use a case-study discussion of a woman seeking treatment guidance for an elective, complex surgical ailment to discuss how professionalism has changed within the past century and where it may be headed with specific regard for the medical profession and surgeons. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, professionals were those who possessed a certain knowledge base, committed to an ╗altruistic mission through serving the general populace while adhering to certain performance standards that were established by other members of the field. In the 20th century, we saw certain abuses from those who held positions of power within medicine including the Tuskegee Syphilis and Nuremberg trials calling into question the trust the public has placed within professional actors. With many competing opinions and forces shaping the medical profession, including the prominent dissemination of health care information making access to both true and misinformation more rampant than ever before, discussion about the evolving nature of the medical profession is important. METHODS/RESULTS: We conducted a literature review to investigate the historical context of the physician-patient relationship with regard for the surgeon. Our work suggests that the core structure of a professional is a foundation rooted in moral excellence that merits trust from the client. In medicine, further efforts at healing from prior abuses necessitates an emphasis on ethical principles, as well as communicating this commitment not only to the patient but also to the society at large. We emphasize the importance of these changes through a case-based discussion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Limiting or withdrawing nonbeneficial medical care is considered ethically responsible throughout most of critical care and medical ethics literature. Practically, however, setting limits to treatment is often challenging. We review the literature to identify best practices for using the definition of futility as an anchoring concept to aid the ethical practice of ICU clinicians. DATA SOURCES: Source data were obtained from a PubMed literature review. STUDY SELECTION: English language articles were chosen based on relevance to medical futility ethics, end-of-life care in the ICU, or communication and conflict mitigation strategies. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent evaluation of selected articles for recurrent content themes as relevant to our clinical case were compared among authors and based on consensus, quantitative and qualitative data from these sources were referenced directly. DATA SYNTHESIS: When life-sustaining treatment is unlikely to achieve a meaningful benefit such as symptom improvement, continued care may be discordant with the patient's goals. Institutional and cultural norms, unconscious biases, and difficulty with navigating conflicts all influence how un(comfortable) clinicians feel in setting limits to futile care. Defining futility in light of the patient's goals and values, focusing on outcomes rather than interventions, and being proactive in communication with families are the staples of medically meaningful critical care. Palliative measures should be framed affirmatively, and clinicians should be transparent about the limits of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians have an ethical obligation not to provide futile care. To practice accordingly, we must clearly understand the nature and forms of futility. Armed with this understanding, our discussions with family and surrogates in the ICU should fundamentally comprise 1) eliciting the patient's values and goals, 2) communicating which interventions serve those values and goals and which do not, and 3) offering only those interventions whose likely outcomes are in line with said values and goals.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: A cornerstone of our healthcare system's response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is widespread testing to facilitate both isolation and early treatment. When patients refuse to undergo coronavirus disease testing, they compromise not only just their own health but also the health of those around them. The primary objective of our review is to identify the most ethical way a given healthcare system may respond to a patient's refusal to undergo coronavirus disease 2019 testing. DATA SOURCES: We apply a systematic approach to a true clinical case scenario to evaluate the ethical merits of four plausible responses to a patient's refusal to undergo coronavirus disease testing. Although our clinical case is anecdotal, it is representative of our experience at our University Tertiary Care Center. DATA EXTRACTION: Each plausible response in the case is rigorously analyzed by examining relevant stakeholders, facts, norms, and ethical weight both with respect to individuals' rights and to the interests of public health. We use the "So Far No Objections" method as the ethical approach of choice because it has been widely used in the Ethics Modules of the Surgical Council on Resident Education Curriculum of the American College of Surgeons. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two ethically viable options may be tailored to individual circumstances depending on the severity of the patient's condition. Although unstable patients must be assumed to be coronavirus disease positive and treated accordingly even in the absence of a test, stable patients who refuse testing may rightfully be asked to seek care elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient autonomy is a fundamental principle of our society's medical ethic, during a pandemic we must, in the interest of vulnerable and critically ill patients, draw certain limits to obliging the preferences of noncritically ill patients with decisional capacity.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to provide a paradigm when it is ethical to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Hospitals around the nation are enacting systems to limit CPR in caring for COVID+ patients for a variety of legitimate reasons and based on concepts of medical futility and allocation of scarce resources. No ethical framework, however, has been proposed as a standard to guide care in this crucial matter. METHODS: Our analysis begins with definitions of ethically relevant terms. We then cycle an illustrative clinical vignette through the mathematically permissible possibilities to account for all conceivable scenarios. Scenarios with ethical tension are examined. RESULTS: Patients have the negative right to refuse care including CPR, but they do not have the positive right to demand it. Our detailed ethical analysis and recommendations support CPR if and only if 1) CPR is judged medically beneficial, and in line with the patient's and values and goals, 2) allocations or scarce resources follow a just and transparent triage system, and 3) providers are protected from contracting the disease. CONCLUSIONS: CPR is an intervention like any other, with attendant risks and benefits and with responsibility for the utilization of limited resources. Our ethical analysis advocates for a systematic approach to codes that respects the important ethical considerations in caring for the critically ill and facilitates patient-centered, evidence-based, and fair treatment to all.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Physicians must satisfy 2 competing expectations: advocate for patients and serve as stewards of resources. No guidelines exist for surgeons on resolving this conflict. We surveyed surgeons' perceptions about these dual obligations. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted our study at 2 large university hospitals in 3 distinct steps, each built on the previous one. First, we surveyed 40 surgery residents and medical students using a 10-question assessment tool as the quantitative portion of our analysis. Next, a focus group of attending surgeons was surveyed to identify themes for the qualitative part of our study. Based on these, 5 attending surgeons from varying specialties were interviewed in a semi-structured format. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test for quantitative analysis and content analysis to report our qualitative findings. RESULTS: Students and residents did not think that they faced resource allocation decisions; however, they observed attending surgeons face them regularly (p = 0.0003). Attending surgeons from various specialties agreed that they thought they were obligated to both provide excellent care and serve as a steward of resources. All surgeons agreed these obligations can conflict. Individual practices varied with all erring on the side of patient care. Concern about being an outlier in one's section was a greater motivator to alter practice than was fear of litigation. No surgeon thought that patients had an adequate understanding of surgeons' dual agency. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons balance the responsibilities of patient care and stewardship of resources with great variability. Diverse practices likely add to inequalities in healthcare delivery and increase mistrust. Surgeons' social contract with patients calls for transparent strategies to address their dual agency.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)