RESUMEN

ABSTRACT: A paradox describes the clash between 2 seemingly reasonable prepositions whose joint occurrence appears impossible. Like any other human endeavor, medicine is also filled with paradoxes that await resolution. This editorial lists several common paradoxes frequently encountered by clinical gastroenterologists. These examples illustrate the interplay between risk and benefit, cost and effect, disease and cure, and escape and exposure. It is hoped that addressing these paradoxes and trying to resolve their underlying contradictions will ultimately lead to a more efficacious and rational delivery of healthcare.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Notwithstanding multiple recommendations in guidelines, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG)-tube placement is still performed in patients with dementia. In this study, we aim to investigate survival in patients with and without dementia after PEG-tube placement. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in four different hospitals in the Netherlands. Furthermore, we explored the ethical considerations that may play a role in the decision whether or not to insert a PEG tube in a patient with dementia. RESULTS: Three-hundred-and-three patients were included, mean age of 77.4 years. Forty-two (13.9%) patients had dementia. Short-term complications did not differ between patients with and without cognitive disorders (P 0.224). However, patients with dementia survived significantly shorter after PEG placement than did patients without dementia. Adjusted for age and sex, patients with dementia had a 49% increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.19). In our exploratory literature search, we found that several ethical concerns and considerations play a role in the decision process of PEG placement. These considerations are both medical and nonmedical and include beliefs regarding the benefits of a PEG tube, a lack of knowledge about the natural course of dementia in both professionals and family of patients, and a fear of letting a patient die hungry. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with dementia had higher mortality rates after PEG placement than patients without dementia. Although multiple ethical concerns and considerations play a role, insertion of a PEG tube in patients with dementia is not appropriate.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Fundamento: en los últimos años la endoscopia digestiva se ha visto favorecida por el progreso científico técnico, donde juega un papel muy importante tanto en el diagnóstico como la terapéutica de diferentes enfermedades; sin embargo no se debe olvidar los aspectos éticos que sirven de puntales reguladores, para que de forma conjunta con los beneficios que se aportan a los individuos, se respete la integridad y dignidad de estos, y donde además se les permita tomar decisiones en relación a lo que desean para su salud, uno de estos elementos reguladores lo constituye el consentimiento informado.Objetivo: revisar los aspectos de la ética en relación con el consentimiento informado y exponer algunas reflexiones de su aplicación en los procederes endoscópicos digestivos.Métodos: se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos biomédicas (SciELO Regional, SciELO Cuba, Pub-Med y Medline), así como repositorios de tesis de grado de especialidades biomédicas desde el año 2000 hasta la actualidad. Donde se utilizaron 31 citas relacionadas con el tema.Desarrollo: se abordaron la importancia y necesidad de la puesta en práctica del consentimiento, las características que debe tener para su correcta elaboración y ejecución, su papel en los grupos vulnerables, aspectos generales en la asistencia médica y específcos en el campo de la endoscopía digestiva.Conclusiones: el consentimiento informado, es uno de los aspectos éticos más importante de la asistencia médica y la investigación. En los procedimientos endoscópicos tanto diagnóstico como terapéutico constituye una herramienta fundamental que no se puede omitir, deben especificarse siempre los riesgos de manera clara y en el caso de investigación dentro de este campo, se debe hacer especial énfasis en el propósito de la misma y no fomentar ideas erróneas(AU)

Background: in the last years digestive endoscopy has been favored by the scientific technical progress, playing a very important role either in the diagnosis and the therapy of different diseases. However we should not forget the ethical aspects that serve as regulator points, so that jointly with the benefits that are contributed to the people, integrity and dignity are respected, and where they are also allowed to make decisions regarding what they want for its health. One of these elements regulators is the informed consent. Objective: to review the aspects of the ethics regarding the informed consent and to expose some reflections of its application in the digestive endoscopic procedures.Methods: a search in biomedical databases (SCIELO Regional, SCIELO Cuba, Pub-Med and Medline), as well as repositories of biomedical specialty thesis from 2000 to the present was conducted. Key words were used: ethics, bioethics, informed consent and endoscopy. Original articles, reviews, opinion articles and contributions, as well as books and thesis were taken into consideration. Finally, 31 citations related to the topic were used.Development: the importance and necessity of the implementation of informed consent were approached, as well as the characteristics that must have for its proper elaboration and execution, its role in vulnerable groups, general aspects in medical care and specifically in the field of digestive endoscopy.Conclusions: informed consent is one of the most important ethical aspects of medical care and research. In both endoscopic diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, it is a fundamental tool that cannot be omitted, risks must always be clearly specified and in the case of research within this field, special emphasis should be placed with the the purpose of not creating misconceptions(AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Standardized management of oncology patients necessarily includes screening for nutritional risk. Weight loss of > 5 kg within 3 months and diminished food intake are warning signals even in overweight patients. In case oral nutrition is neither adequate nor feasible even by fortification or oral nutritional supplements, the implantation of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or fine needle catheter jejunostomy (FNCJ) offers enteral access for long-term nutritional support. Although the indications derive from fulfilling caloric needs, endoscopic or operative measures are not considered to be an urgent or even emergency measure. The endoscopist or surgeon should be fully aware and informed of the indications and make a personal assessment of the situation. The implantation of a feeding tube requires informed consent of the patient or legal surrogates. The review summarizes recent indications, technical problems and complications.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is placed on results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the quality of the supporting evidence (Table 1). The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as "we suggest," whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as "we recommend." This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/AIM: There are many differences and deficiencies in the process of informed consent. The aim of this study was to get the view of gastrointestinal endoscopists in Croatia on obtaining patients' consent before endoscopic procedures. METHODS: During the 2004 annual meeting of the Croatian Society of Gastroenterology, endoscopists were asked to answer a questionnaire according to common clinical practice in affiliated institutions. It included questions on endoscopists' experience and education in medical ethics, as well as on the nature and quality of information given to patients and their opinion on proposed measures for improvement of the informed consent process. RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 96 endoscopists attending the meeting and the response rate was 54% (52/96). In only 50% of institutions was the obtained consent written and potential complications of endoscopic procedures are occasionally given to the patient. In the minority of cases the patient is provided with information about alternative diagnostic tests and/or treatment options, and the information about mortality rate was almost never discussed. CONCLUSIONS: In Croatia, the process of informed consent for endoscopy needs improvement and should be regarded against the background of education in medical ethics, regional burden in endoscopic practice and appropriateness of by-laws and local guidelines.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/AIM: Data on informed consent procedures in endoscopy centers in China are lacking. The aim of this study was to record the current status of informed consent procedures in four tertiary endoscopy centers in China. METHODS: All patients underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopic examinations in four tertiary endoscopy centers in China from August 2006 to October 2006. Data on patients' age, gender, education level, type of endoscopic procedures, complication rates, and satisfaction were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: Totally, 1,303 patients were included (mean age 47.7 years, 50.2% males, 88.3% outpatients, 13.1% with university education) and underwent 1,308 endoscopic procedures. Of these patients, 994 were informed prior to the endoscopic procedures; the remaining patients were not asked for their oral or written informed consent before the procedure. No serious complications occurred, but 9 patients were not satisfied with the procedures and 5 patients refused to complete the endoscopic examination. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrointestinal endoscopic examinations, especially diagnostic gastroscopy, are safe, carrying minimal patient risk, but the current practice of informed consent procedures in China is suboptimal. More efforts should be made to improve the standards of informed consent for endoscopic procedures in China.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patients' perspectives on the amount of information they receive prior to diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopies. Our unit's policy for obtaining consent consists of initially posting an information leaflet to the patient followed by subsequent explanation of the procedure on arrival for the test. The consent form is signed by the patient immediately prior to the test. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted to assess patient perception and satisfaction with the amount of information received before diagnostic endoscopy. RESULTS: The information was obtained from 127 of the 175 questionnaires that were distributed. Whereas 97% had read the information leaflet, only 52% had read the consent form before signing it. 64/127(51%) felt dissatisfied because they would have wanted more information while 3% were dissatisfied because they would have liked less information relating to one or more aspects of the test. Dissatisfaction was higher in patients who had not read the consent form (p < 0.001) and those with some formal education (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who did not read the consent form were more dissatisfied. Strategies to improve the rate of reading this document may increase patient satisfaction.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Previously doctors decided what was right or wrong in medicine, today our individual freedom is more limited. External influences including the human rights act, government initiatives, management protocols, professional guidelines, multi-disciplinary decision-making and financial restrictions intervene between the doctor and the patient. Furthermore the move away from paternalism in the doctor-patient relationship to patient empowerment (informed consent) has put patients in charge of their medical destiny. Increased public expectations leading to health screening, genetic profiling and treatment of unwanted physiological changes mean that doctors now manage healthy patients for 'potential' or 'virtual' disease. This implies a greater ethical burden than treatment of the sick. Finally, death is no longer regarded by many as a physiological process, but a consequence of disease. The investigation and management of patients with incurable conditions can lead to difficult ethical dilemmas. Gastroenterology and endoscopy generate specific ethical problems which among others include training in endoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement, informed consent and live endoscopy demonstrations. This article addresses some of these issues in order to draw attention to potential difficulties in modern ethical practice. It should be read in conjunction with the other publications stemming from the 1st Symposium on Ethics in Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, Kos, June 2002.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A hospital ethics committee (EC) is an organized body of people, convened to identify, analyze and help resolve moral problems that arise in the care of patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the need to educate endoscopists about the role of the ECs in European and Mediterranean countries. METHODS: A structured questionnaire concerning the role of ECs was sent to the representatives of endoscopy societies, which are also members of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. RESULTS: The response rate was 59% (26/44). About half of the responding representatives had attended more than 1 lecture or read more than 1 article about ethics during the previous 10 years. The percentage of hospitals with an established EC varied between countries. In 15% of the countries <20% but in 58% of the countries >60% of the hospitals have established ECs. Sixty-five percent of the responders believe that the EC is an advisory committee and 31% an executive committee. Endoscopists believe that ECs have been of great help to their specialty in their country. CONCLUSIONS: The roles of the ECs are not clear to endoscopists and there is a need for education in this field.

Asunto(s)