Ethical Considerations Surrounding Survival Benefit-Based Liver Allocation

poster abstractThe disparity between the demand for and supply of donor livers has continued to grow over the last two decades, placing greater weight on the need for efficient and effective allocation. Although the use of extended criteria donors (ECD) has shown greater potential, it remains unregulated. Schaubel et al. have recently proposed a survival benefit model which balances waitlist survival and potential transplantation benefit for a given quality of donor liver. The OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee considered this and other models in a recent report, concluding that the current allocation method does not require modification. In order to further evaluate the survival benefit model, the various ethical concerns shaping organ allocation were discussed and used to identify strengths and shortcomings associated with the proposed model. Compared to the current MELD/PELD system, the survival benefit model incorporates a greater number of ethical principles, uses a sophisticated statistical model to increase efficiency and reduce waste, minimizes bias, and parallels developments in the allocation of other organs. Conversely, the model fails to address quality of life concerns, prioritization for younger patients, its less promising posttransplant prediction accuracy, and potential issues regarding informed consent and economic burdens. To remedy these issues, we suggested incorporating various improvements based on recent literature. Although limitations exist, the survival benefit model now exists as a better means of improving allocation. We support the model proposed by Schaubel et al., with the amendments we suggested, and urge the OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee and the transplant community to strongly consider this model as another step toward better liver allocation

Making Decisions for Hospitalized Older Adults: Ethical Factors Considered by Family Surrogates

Background Hospitalized older adults frequently have impaired cognition and must rely on surrogates to make major medical decisions. Ethical standards for surrogate decision making are well delineated, but little is known about what factors surrogates actually consider when making decisions. Objectives To determine factors surrogate decision makers consider when making major medical decisions for hospitalized older adults, and whether or not they adhere to established ethical standards. Design Semi-structured interview study of the experience and process of decision making. Setting A public safety-net hospital and a tertiary referral hospital in a large city in the Midwest. Participants Thirty-five surrogates with a recent decision making experience for an inpatient age 65 and older. Measurements Key factors surrogates considered when making decisions. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using the grounded theory method of qualitative analysis. Results Surrogates considered patient-centered factors and surrogate-centered factors. Patient-centered factors included: 1) respecting the patient’s input, (2) using past knowledge of patient to infer the patient’s wishes, and (3) considering what is in the patient’s best interests. Some surrogates expressed a desire for more information about the patient’s prior wishes. Surrogate-centered factors included 1) Surrogate’s wishes as a guide, (2) The surrogate’s religious beliefs and/or spirituality, (3) The surrogate’s interests, (4) Family consensus and (5) Obligation and guilt. Conclusion These data show that surrogate decision making is more complex than the standard ethical models, which are limited to patient autonomy and beneficence. Because surrogates also imagine what they would want under the circumstances and consider their own needs and preferences, models of surrogate decision making must account for these additional considerations. Surrogates’ desire for more information about patient preferences suggests a need for greater advance care planning

Liver Allocation to Non-Citizen Non-Residents: An Ethical Framework for a Last-In-Line Approach

The incidence of non-U.S. citizen non-U.S. resident patients coming to the United States specifically for deceased donor liver transplantation raises compelling ethical questions that require careful consideration. The inclusion of these often financially and/or socially privileged patients in the pool of potential candidates for an absolutely scarce and life-saving liver transplant may exacerbate disparities already existing in deceased donor liver allocation. In addition, their inclusion on organ transplant waiting lists conflicts with recognized ethical principles of justice and reciprocity. Moreover, preliminary data suggest that public awareness of this practice could discourage organ donation, thereby worsening an already profound supply–demand gulf. Finally, U.S. organ allocation policies and statutes are out of step with recently promulgated international transplant guidelines, which prioritize self-sufficiency of organ programs. This article analyzes each of these ethical conflicts within the context of deceased donor liver transplantation and recommends policy changes that align the United States with international practices that discourage this scenario

Doctor, What Would You Do?: An ANSWER for patients requesting advice about value-laden decisions

This article presents a previously published framework, summarized in the mnemonic ANSWER (A, Active listening; N, Needs assessment; S, Self-awareness/reflection; W, Whose perspective?; E, Elicit values; R, Respond) for how to respond to the question, “Doctor, what would you do?” when considering medical decisions that are preference-sensitive, meaning there is limited or debatable evidence to guide clinical recommendations, or are value-laden, such that the “right” decision may differ based on the context or values of a given individual. Using the mnemonic and practical examples, we attempt to make the framework for an ethically appropriate approach to these conversations more accessible for clinicians. Rather than a decision rule, this mnemonic represents a set of points to consider when physicians are considering an ethically acceptable response that fosters trust and rapport. We apply this approach to a case of periviable counseling, among the more emotionally challenging and value-laden antenatal decisions faced by providers and patients

Pandemic flu preparedness: ethical issues and recommendations to the Indiana State Department of Health

Four Recommendations are proposed: 1. the State must identify all healthcare workers who are deemed to be critically necessary during the pandemic; 2. the State and healthcare organizations should adopt a “high expectations, no punishment” approach to absenteeism; 3. the State should set and communicate expectations that healthcare institutions have adequate medical supplies and that these institutions ensure these supplies be made available to all personnel expected to interact with patients; and 4. the State should encourage healthcare institutions to establish clear policies for determining sanctions for noncompliance with expected responsibilities that are both fair and responsive to exceptional circumstances.The Indiana State Department of Healt

A Conceptual Model of the Role of Communication in Surrogate Decision Making for Hospitalized Adults

OBJECTIVE: To build a conceptual model of the role of communication in decision making, based on literature from medicine, communication studies and medical ethics. METHODS: We proposed a model and described each construct in detail. We review what is known about interpersonal and patient-physician communication, described literature about surrogate-clinician communication, and discussed implications for our developing model. RESULTS: The communication literature proposes two major elements of interpersonal communication: information processing and relationship building. These elements are composed of constructs such as information disclosure and emotional support that are likely to be relevant to decision making. We propose these elements of communication impact decision making, which in turn affects outcomes for both patients and surrogates. Decision making quality may also mediate the relationship between communication and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although many elements of the model have been studied in relation to patient-clinician communication, there is limited data about surrogate decision making. There is evidence of high surrogate distress associated with decision making that may be alleviated by communication-focused interventions. More research is needed to test the relationships proposed in the model. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Good communication with surrogates may improve both the quality of medical decisions and outcomes for the patient and surrogate

Oncology Nurses’ Experiences with Prognosis Related Communication

poster abstractBackground: Oncology nurses have opportunities to engage in prognosis related communication with advanced cancer patients but often encounter barriers that impede patient prognosis understanding. Deficits in prognosis understanding have been associated with delays in transitions to end of life care, overly aggressive and potentially non-beneficial cancer treatments, and poor quality of life. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe nurses' experiences with prognosis related communication with advanced cancer patients. Methods: A framework of realism was used in this qualitative, descriptive design. A thematic analysis of audio-recorded interviews with oncology nurses (n=27) recruited from a Midwestern urban academic health center and 3 affiliated institutions was performed. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and accuracy checked. Data were coded by 3 experienced researchers. After coding, themes were identified, and a thematic map was developed. Methods to ensure trustworthiness of the findings were used. Results: Six themes were identified: Being in the middle, assessing the situation, barriers to prognosis communication, nurse actions, benefits of prognosis understanding, and negative outcomes. Nurses managed barriers through facilitation, collaboration, or independent actions to assist patients and/or families with prognosis understanding. Conclusions: Shortcomings in prognosis related communication with advanced cancer patients may contribute to negative outcomes for patients and nurses. Interventions to advance nurses’ abilities to facilitate and engage in prognosis communications are needed. Inter-professional communication skills education may also be beneficial

Opiate Written Behavioral Agreements: A Case for Abandonment

Written behavioral agreements (WBAs) are gaining popularity as part of the effort to manage the alarming increase in prescription drug abuse. The rationale for increased use of WBAs in managing patients with chronic pain is that they are believed to increase adherence to agreed-upon behaviors, reduce addiction to or diversion of prescription drugs, and satisfy informed consent requirements. However, there are no high-quality data to support their widespread use in any of these areas. The evidence used to support the use of WBAs is insufficient to justify their unfairness and the high risk of harm they pose to the doctor-patient relationship. Instead, we contend that WBAs are being used to provide leverage for severing relationships with some of our most challenging patients. We propose that physicians treating patients for chronic pain abandon the use of WBAs. Alternatives include open communication, detailed informed consent processes, carefully documented discussions, and most important, commitment to ongoing relationships even with difficult patients

Disclosing Medical Mistakes: A Communication Management Plan for Physicians

Introduction: There is a growing consensus that disclosure of medical mistakes is ethically and legally appropriate, but such disclosures are made difficult by medical traditions of concern about medical malpractice suits and by physicians’ own emotional reactions. Because the physician may have compelling reasons both to keep the information private and to disclose it to the patient or family, these situations can be conceptualized as privacy dilemmas. These dilemmas may create barriers to effectively addressing the mistake and its consequences. Although a number of interventions exist to address privacy dilemmas that physicians face, current evidence suggests that physicians tend to be slow to adopt the practice of disclosing medical mistakes. Methods: This discussion proposes a theoretically based, streamlined, two-step plan that physicians can use as an initial guide for conversations with patients about medical mistakes. The mistake disclosure management plan uses the communication privacy management theory. Results: The steps are 1) physician preparation, such as talking about the physician’s emotions and seeking information about the mistake, and 2) use of mistake disclosure strategies that protect the physician-patient relationship. These include the optimal timing, context of disclosure delivery, content of mistake messages, sequencing, and apology. A case study highlighted the disclosure process. Conclusion: This Mistake Disclosure Management Plan may help physicians in the early stages after mistake discovery to prepare for the initial disclosure of a medical mistakes. The next step is testing implementation of the procedures suggested