Xenograft recipients and the right to withdraw from a clinical trial

Preclinical xenotransplantation research using genetically engineered pigs has begun to show some promising results and could one day offer a scalable means of addressing organ shortage. While it is a fundamental tenet of ethical human subject research that participants have a right to withdraw from research once enrolled, several scholars have argued that the right to withdraw from xenotransplant research should be suspended because of the public health risks posed by xenozoonotic transmission. Here, we present a comprehensive critical evaluation of the claim that xenotransplant recipients should be required to waive their right to withdraw from lifelong biosurveillance. We conclude that if xenotransplantation requires participants to waive their right to withdraw, then clinical trials may not be justifiable, given the ethical and legal obstacles involved with doing so. Consequently, if clinical trials are permitted with a right to withdraw, then they may pose a significant public health risk.

Clinical Teaching and Consent: An Analysis of New Zealand's Legal Requirements for Obtaining Consent to Clinical Teaching Involving Consumers of Health and Disability Services

Student involvement in patient care without consent has attracted recent attention in New Zealand. New Zealand's Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (Code) gives patients the right to give or refuse consent to participate in clinical teaching, but its practical application to clinical teaching, particularly postgraduate, is unclear. This article explores the history and precedent of the Code and ethical considerations, to inform where amendment to the Code is desirable in the interests of clarity, pragmatism, and to reflect better the legislature's intent.

Hospital Care for Cancer Patients-Education and Respect for Patient Rights

This study aims to examine cancer patients' opinions of safety, the observance of patient's rights, and the quality of healthcare. Such an analysis will allow for the identification of areas for improvement in quality, safety, and communication between medical staff and patients. Cancer patients are a special kind of patients with chronic and complex diseases, so we need to observe the type of communication they use, which is a critical issue in a hospital ward but also has a significant impact on how the patient follows recommendations at home. Observing a patient's rights impacts the safety and quality of medical care. This information allows for the identification of areas requiring deeper analysis and improvement. This study was based on a survey conducted at an oncology hospital. The survey contained questions divided into seven sections related to the study areas. Our study emphasizes the importance of knowledge and understanding regarding patient rights among medical staff and patients, underscoring their role in ensuring quality and safety in healthcare settings. We found a strong correlation between the politeness of medical receptionists and staff and patient perceptions of the clarity and exhaustiveness of the information provided.

Knowledge Gaps and Bridges: The Relationship between the Awareness of General Patient Rights and the Awareness of Minors' Patient Rights in the Netherlands

The major focus of this research is the level of awareness among Dutch parents of general patient rights in relation to minors' patient rights. Moreover, this study is intended to highlight the most effective strategies to increase the awareness of general and minor patient rights in the Netherlands. A survey was conducted among 1010 Dutch parents aged between 35 and 55 years who had at least one child. In this study, we described the relationship between the knowledge among parents of general patient rights and their understanding of the patient rights of minors. A significant connection was found between the knowledge levels of general patient rights and the knowledge levels of the patient rights of minors (p < 0.05 [95% CI: 0.019-0.183]). While age and sex (male/female) did not appear to be significant confounders in this association, the educational background of the participants may have played a role. This study provides comprehensive insights into the association between the knowledge of general patient rights and the patient rights of minors among Dutch parents. Furthermore, this study points out that there is a need for focused educational interventions to address specific areas of misunderstanding or uncertainty.

Psychometric testing of the Indonesian version of the Nurses' Ethical Behavior in Protecting Patients' Rights (I-NEBPPR) scale

Background

Nurses routinely encounter ethical dilemmas with patients and healthcare professionals. Therefore, it is crucial for them to be conscious of ethical principles and apply them in their decision-making processes. However, no specific questionnaire is available to assess nurses' ethical conduct in Indonesia.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the Nurses' Ethical Behavior in Protecting Patients' Rights (I-NEBPPR) scale.

Methods

Following the World Health Organization's guidelines and utilizing the WHODAS 2.0 translation package, the NEBPPR was translated into Bahasa Indonesia and underwent a rigorous translation and adaptation process. Data were collected between October and November 2022 and included 283 Indonesian nurses as participants. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate construct validity. Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability were also performed for comprehensive evaluation. IBM SPSS statistics version 27.0 and AMOS 24.0 were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Five items were excluded from the original versions, forming five subscales that include a combined total of 23 items. The subscales are as follows: Factor 1 (Respect for right to information and decision), Factor 2 (Providing fair care), Factor 3 (Providing benefit-not harming), Factor 4 (Respect for patient values and choices), and Factor 5 (Attention to privacy). The I-NEBPPR model demonstrated robust construct validity with factor loadings ranging from 0.453 to 0.871. CFA showed satisfactory model fit indices (χ2/df = 1.554 (p <0.001), GFI = 0.906, CFI = 0.929, IFI = 0.930, RMSEA = 0.044). Reliability metrics were solid, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.819 and composite reliability exceeding 0.6. Both convergent validity, as indicated by AVE, and discriminant validity, as confirmed by the Fornell-Larcker criterion, met established thresholds.

Conclusion

It is affirmed that the 23-item I-NEBPPR demonstrated strong psychometric properties, making it a valuable, practical, and time-efficient tool for nurse supervisors, nurse managers, and nurse leaders to assess nurses' clinically-based ethical behavior in their efforts to protect patient's rights.

An Audit of Preoperative Informed Consent in Surgical Patients at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan

Informed consent plays a crucial role in modern clinical practice, representing a fundamental aspect of patient rights and medical ethics. The purpose of informed consent is to ensure that patients fully comprehend the procedures to which they are providing consent and the recognition that the surgeon is not guilty of battery. Moreover, clinicians safeguard themselves against potential repercussions by documenting the risks adequately conveyed to patients before performing surgery. Therefore, the significance of informed consent cannot be overstated. This survey encompassed patients from various surgical departments who underwent surgery in April 2023 at a tertiary care hospital. For the survey participants above the age of 18 were selected undergoing either emergency or elective surgical procedures. The survey employed a structured questionnaire for interviews, assessing whether patients had given informed consent before surgery. The questionnaire also inquired whether patients received information about the diagnosis, proposed surgical procedure, associated risks, and any available alternative treatment options. Furthermore, patients were asked about the proposed anesthesia type and whether the associated risks were communicated to them before the surgery. A random selection of 50 patients was done for this study, and the process of block randomization was used with the help of a computer app to reduce bias and allow the representation of the various surgical subspecialties present in the tertiary care hospital. No evidence of consent being taken was present in two patients(4%) or the document on which the consent was signed was not present in the file. Only 48% of the patients acknowledged that they fully understood the provided information. While 60% of the patients were informed about the type of anesthesia proposed, a mere 8% were provided information regarding anesthesia risks. None of the patients in the emergency setting signed the consent form themselves, regardless of their capability to do so. Conversely, only 24% of the patients in the elective setting signed the consent form themselves. The study revealed that the quality of informed consent signing in this tertiary care hospital is below average. Healthcare professionals, including doctors and staff, need education regarding the importance of informed consent and the patient's right to comprehend any procedure or intervention to which they are subjected. A shift in the paradigm of decision-making about a patient's health needs to emphasize that the patient is the most critical entity in these decisions. The main aim of the study is twofold, primarily we want to analyze the existing method of taking informed consent by comparison with the guidelines and check whether the current practice of informed consent achieves its goal of involving the patients in their treatment. Secondarily, we want to discuss the effect that patient-doctor communication might have on the delivery of the above-mentioned information.

Healthcare Professionals' Perception Regarding Patient Rights and Safety in Najran, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Patient safety and rights are the most crucial aspects of healthcare quality. In Saudi Arabia, there is a paucity of evidence concerning the perspectives of healthcare providers on the rights and safety of patients. Hence, this study aimed to assess the perceptions of healthcare providers toward patients' rights and safety in Najran, Saudi Arabia.

METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional study was undertaken in Najran, Saudi Arabia, from December 2022 to October 2023, utilizing an online survey. This study included 307 healthcare providers who responded to the questionnaire via Google web link (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States).

RESULTS

The present research comprised 307 healthcare personnel, of whom 65.8% were male and possessed a variety of academic backgrounds. The participants exhibited a high level of support for patients' rights, as evidenced by their agreement with 88.4-90% of questions on a variety of dimensions; this demonstrated their dedication to providing patient-centered care. Concerning medical errors, a significant proportion of respondents (74.9-86.1%) exhibited comprehensive comprehension and a readiness to disclose such incidents. Diverse viewpoints surfaced regarding the attribution of errors, the necessity of reporting, and the accountability for disclosure. The interdependence of patient rights and attitudes towards patient safety was highlighted by substantial positive correlations.

CONCLUSION

The viewpoints of healthcare professionals regarding medical errors and patients' liberties were discussed in this study. Advocacy for patients' rights is indicative of a commitment to patient-centered care that prioritizes autonomy and transparency. Although most participants demonstrated a willingness to report medical errors and possess a solid comprehension of their causes, divergent views emerged regarding attribution and disclosure. The interrelation between patient rights and attitudes toward patient safety was supported by positive correlations. The significance of continuous education in healthcare to promote a safety culture and enhance patient-centric practices is underscored by these results. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of culturally tailored interventions on the attitudes and practices of healthcare providers in Najran with regard to patient rights and safety.

Shared decision-making and specific informed consent in patients with aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the refusal rate of elective aortic aneurysm surgery in asymptomatic patients after the presentation of a detailed informed consent form followed by a meeting where patient and their families can analyze each item.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 49 patients who had aneurysms and were offered surgical treatment between June 2017 and February 2019. The patients were divided into two groups: the Rejected Surgery Group, which was composed of patients who refused the proposed surgical treatment, and the Accepted Surgery Group, comprising patients who accepted the proposed surgeries and subsequently underwent them.

RESULTS

Of the 49 patients, 13 (26.5%) refused surgery after reading the informed consent and attending the comprehensive meeting. We observed that patients who refused surgery had statistically smaller aneurysms than those who accepted surgery (9% versus 26%). These smaller aneurysms were above the indication size, according to the literature.

CONCLUSION

One-quarter of patients who were indicated for elective surgical repair of aortic aneurysms rejected surgery after shared decision-making, which involved presenting patients with an informed consent form followed by a clarification meeting for them and their families to analyze each item. The only factor that significantly influenced a rejection of the procedure was the size of the aneurysm; patients who rejected surgery had smaller aneurysms than those who accepted surgery. Up to 26% of patients with aortic aneurysms refused surgical repair. The proposed technique, whether open or endovascular, did not influence patients' decisions. Patients with smaller aneurysms were more likely to refuse aortic aneurysm treatment.

Evaluation of clinical ethics in Iranian hospitals: Employing a 360° approach-A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

Clinical ethics is defined as recognizing and resolving value conflicts that arise from providing care in medical centers. This study aimed to evaluate the practice of clinical ethics in Iranian hospitals with a 360° approach.

Methods

The study was conducted by employing a descriptive-analytical method in 2019. The statistical population included staff, patients, and managers of public, private, and insurance hospitals in Mazandaran province. The sample size for each group was 317, 729, and 36, respectively. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire. The appearance and content validity of the questionnaire were confirmed by expert opinion and construct validity was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. The reliability was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test. We used SPSS software version 21 to analyse the data.

Results

The obtained mean score of clinical ethics from the perspective of service providers (0.56 ± 4.45) was higher than the perspective of service presenters (4.35 ± 0.65) and service recipients (0.79 ± 4.22), which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Among the eight dimensions of clinical ethics, respect for the patient's right (0.68 ± 4.09) illustrated the highest score and medical error management (0.63 ± 4.33) presented the lowest score.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, the level of clinical ethics in the hospitals of Mazandaran province is favorable, and among the dimensions of clinical ethics, respect for patient rights gained the lowest score and communication with other colleagues gained the highest score. Therefore, informing and teaching medical professionals in the field of clinical ethics, formulating binding laws, and paying serious attention to this issue in ranking and accrediting hospitals are recommended.

Plain Language Summary of principles for improving the care of people with eosinophil-associated diseases

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

Eosinophil-associated diseases (EADs) are a group of conditions in which eosinophils (a type of white blood cell) are thought to play a key role in the disease and how it develops. Some EADs are common, such as atopic dermatitis (also called eczema) and a subtype of asthma called eosinophilic asthma, while others are rare, such as hypereosinophilic syndrome (a condition in which a person has a very high number of eosinophils in both the blood and one or more organs). People with EADs face many problems related to their conditions. Symptoms such as severe abdominal pain, itch, or shortness of breath impact both the patient as well as their friends and family. Patients with EADs also experience delays to diagnosis and treatment as well as financial barriers. Healthcare professionals sometimes fail to recognize the complex set of symptoms that characterize an EAD, and this may cause delays in reaching a correct diagnosis. As a result, it may take longer for a patient to get the best care and the most effective treatments, which may contribute to poor health. The goal of this charter is to describe the key elements of good quality care, which all people with EADs deserve, as well as to present an action plan to improve health and overall well-being for people with EADs. Proposed use of this patient charter: The principles described in this charter (a written guide to achieve an outcome) show the core elements of quality care that people with EADs must receive. They also describe clear steps to reduce the burden on patients and their caregivers and to improve patient health outcomes. We urge healthcare professionals, hospitals, and policymakers around the world to adopt these principles quickly. By doing this, people with EADs will be more likely to receive an accurate and timely diagnosis and have access to quality care and treatment in the right setting.

Death with Dignity in End-of-Life Nursing Care: Concept Analysis by Rodgers' Evolutionary Method

Background

The concept of dying with dignity is being discussed in various fields, including psychology, sociology, medicine, and nursing, with different definitions available for this concept. However, few studies investigated the concept of end-of-life nursing care, which plays an important role in the implementation of the concept. This concept can also affect people's perception, attitude, and behavior toward practicing dignified death in health-care centers. The current study aimed to clarify, understand, and further recognize the concept of death with dignity in end-of-life nursing care.

Materials and Methods

Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis was used to clarify the concept of death with dignity in end-of-life nursing care. MEDLINE, BLACKWELL, PROQUEST, Science Direct, and CINAHL databases and national databases of SID and Iran Medex were systematically searched to identify relevant studies using various combinations of the following keywords: "dignity," "dignified death," "dying with dignity," and "dignifying death" in combination with "end-of-life care." All articles with the above-mentioned terms in their title, abstract, or keywords and published in English from 2006 to 2020 were included. A total of 21 articles were finally identified for review.

Results

Characteristics of dying with dignity were categorized into two dimensions of human dignity and holistic care. The antecedents included professional and organizational factors, and outcomes included good death and career promotion.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that end-of-life nursing care is an important dimension of clinical nursing that plays a unique role in admission and facilitating the process of dying and, eventually, dying with dignity.

Diplomatic response to global health challenges in recognizing patient needs: A qualitative interview study

Background

Global health diplomacy is the applied practice of foreign affairs to further national goals that focus on health issues requiring international cooperation and collective action. We aimed to determine how international diplomats and health policy-related professionals in the EU understand the concept of health diplomacy, which impacts both diplomatic relations as well as patients' rights.

Methods

In a qualitative interview study, we used a heterogeneous stratified purposeful sampling to reach participants from different countries and different practitioners from the Pyramid of Health Diplomacy: core, multi-stakeholder, and informal. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify the main themes.

Findings

We contacted 131 practitioners of GHD, of which 37 responded, and nine agreed to be interviewed. From 11 interview questions, four main themes emerged from the analysis of the individual interview. The participants reported limited knowledge about the definition of GHD but also that they engaged in daily activities and decisions of inter-governmental bodies. They were not aware of existing special education and training for health attachés and made suggestions for improving the field and practice of GHD. They were not fully familiar with the European Charter of Patients' Rights. There was a consensus from all participants that patient rights need to improve as a fundamental right. They stressed the fact that the hospital lockdown and the right access to healthcare were impaired during the COVID pandemic.

Interpretation

The role of health diplomacy in linking public health and foreign affairs is key to respecting patients' rights. Health over other interests is becoming an increasingly critical element in foreign policy. Establishing a clear career path for health attachés is necessary to foster effective global health agreements and coordination across countries.

Evaluation of a Multidisciplinary Extracurricular Event Using Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory: A Qualitative Study

Background and Purpose

Although health science programs run parallel to each other and comprise of shared core subjects between the different disciplines, students of the different disciplines rarely mix or interact with each other during their undergraduate studies. Extracurricular activities are a big part of university students' life, through which students have an opportunity to express themselves and enhance their soft skills in a safe and relaxed environment. Recently, King Saud University (KSU), Saudi Arabia, launched a multi-disciplinary event aimed at raising public's awareness of their rights and responsibilities in the healthcare system. Although the event was designed to educate the public about their rights and responsibilities in the healthcare system, it has proven to be a good opportunity to promote interprofessional education among participating students. This study aims to review and assess the impact of this multi-disciplinary public awareness event on the acquisition of core interprofessional competencies by participating students from the health sciences using Kolb's experiential learning theory as a framework.

Patients and Methods

This qualitative study used semi-structured Zoom interviews in Nov 2020 with health science students who participated in the event. The research team used a pre-designed topic guide based on Kolb's experiential learning theory (KELT) for the interview questions. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-one students, representing four health science colleges at KSU participated in three focus groups. The main themes identified were participants' attitudes towards the event, the types of knowledge and skills acquired from the event, and how they practically applied the knowledge acquired. These themes were aligned to KELT as this study's framework.

Conclusion

The event covered the most important concepts of interprofessional education and could be a potential tool to educate students from multiple disciplines.

Patients' right to know: A scoping review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To analyse research-based evidence about patients' right to know from their own perspective to promote ethically high-quality nursing and to identify future research areas.

BACKGROUND

Patients' right to know is a fundamental right. Although of topical research interest, the current state of scientific evidence on patients' right to know has not been reviewed.

DESIGN

A scoping review according to the methodological framework by Arksey & O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

METHODS

In June 2022, a literature search was conducted in the Ovid Medline, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed, empirical studies on the right to know with samples comprising adult patients. Data were analysed with inductive content analysis, and methodological quality was assessed with Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Out of 2658 identified reports, 12 were selected for analysis. Based on the results, the research on patients' right to know can be classified into two main content categories: (1) expectations of the right and (2) realisation of the right. In the quality assessment, most of the reports did not meet all the quality criteria, the most common deficits being related to instrumentation and risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Research-based evidence on patients' right to know provided a general insight into expectations and realisation of the right to know and not to know. The results indicate a need for continued efforts for novel approaches with high-quality methodological choices in future studies.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses make constantly ethical decisions: The findings of this study can be useful for their decision-making and understanding of the patient's perspective on knowledge issues, and therefore, support ethically high-quality patient education.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No direct patient or public contribution to the review.

Evaluation of Patient Access to Spanish-Language-Concordant Care on a Postpartum Unit

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient access to Spanish-language-concordant care on a postpartum unit and to identify facilitators and barriers to the use of interpretation services.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods research study, comprising a cross-sectional chart review from September to December 2019 and semistructured interviews from June to December 2020.

SETTING/LOCAL PROBLEM

A tertiary academic medical center in the southeastern United States where individuals with limited English proficiency are at risk for poor health outcomes when they are unable to communicate with clinicians in their preferred language.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a chart review of 50 randomly selected birthing parent-newborn couplets and interviews with 14 inpatient health care team members.

MEASUREMENTS

The chart review examined patient characteristics, health care team composition including Spanish language proficiency, length of stay, number of interpreter requests, and time between clinician interpreter requests and interpreter arrival on the unit. Interviews evaluated facilitators and barriers to interpreter use.

RESULTS

Access to a clinician certified in medical Spanish or an interpreter was offered to 12 of 50 (24%) couplets upon admission to the unit and to 7 of 50 (14%) of couplets for daily maternal and newborn medical rounds. Clinicians reported long and unpredictable wait times to access interpreters, which led them to rely on hand gestures, broken Spanish, and smartphone apps to "get by" when communicating with patients without certified interpretation services. Participants described low usage of interpreters for "noncritical" encounters.

CONCLUSION

Interpreters and other forms of Spanish-language-concordant care were underused on the postpartum unit. This deviation from national standards may put families at risk for harm. Recommendations from this study include advancing a culture of respectful care, improving the interpreter request workflow, addressing safe staffing, facilitating direct patient access to interpreters, and providing ongoing evaluation and support.

[Care pathways, care of the pathway: the underside of a debate]

The coordinated care pathway consists of entrusting the attending physician with the coordination of care of the patient for the realization of medical follow-up with the ethical concern of a responsible consultation of the caregivers. This, so that medical practices and care devices are turned towards efficient care but also integrative, a qualitative search for life combining continuity of care and promotion of global health. This evolution towards greater respect for patients' rights requires that decisions taken be intelligently regulated in a context where caregiving interventions are still very prevalent and potentially intrusive in regard to the privacy of the persons being cared for.

Three Kinds of Decision-Making Capacity for Refusing Medical Interventions

According to a standard account of patient decision-making capacity (DMC), patients can provide ethically valid consent or refusal only if they are able to understand and appreciate their medical condition and can comparatively evaluate all offered treatment options. We argue instead that some patient refusals can be capacitated, and therefore ethically authoritative, without meeting the strict criteria of this standard account-what we call comparative DMC. We describe how patients may possess burdens-based DMC for refusal if they have an overriding objection to at least one burden associated with each treatment option or goals-based DMC for refusal if they have an overriding goal that is inconsistent with treatment. The overridingness of a patient's objections to burdens, or of their commitment to a goal, can justify the moral authority of their refusal, even when a patient lacks some of the cognitive capacities that standard accounts of DMC involve.

Effect of inpatient experiences on patient satisfaction and the willingness to recommend a hospital: The mediating role of patient satisfaction: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

As high-quality health care encompasses patient-centered care, this study used the perceived quality-satisfaction-behavioral intention and structure-process-outcome models to (1) investigate the relationships among patient experience, patient satisfaction, and the willingness to recommend a hospital and (2) estimate the indirect effects of patient satisfaction on the relationship between patient experience and the willingness to recommend a hospital.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey design was adopted to investigate data obtained from the Seoul National University Hospital Patient Experience survey administered in 2020. Responses were analyzed from 1555 patients, who had been admitted to the inpatient ward of a tertiary hospital for a period lasting more than 1 day.

Results

The path model demonstrated a good fit to the relationships between patient experience, patient satisfaction, and the willingness to recommend the hospital. Patient experience directly influenced patient satisfaction (β = 0.659, p < 0.001) and the willingness to recommend the hospital (β = 0.168, p < 0.001), whereas patient satisfaction had an indirect effect (β = 0.418, p < 0.001) on the relationship between patient experience and the willingness to recommend the hospital.

Conclusion

Patient experience is a critical factor that health care systems need to consider for enhancing patient-centeredness, patient satisfaction, and the willingness to recommend a hospital.

Consent and Deidentification of Patient Images in Dermatology Journals: Observational Study

Collapse

Reversing physician hesitancy to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant patients

Physician hesitancy is said to occur when physicians do not recommend COVID-19 vaccination, and it is a contributing factor for the low vaccination rate for COVID-19 in pregnant women. Physician hesitancy has become a major, unaddressed problem with regard to the quality and safety of obstetrical care. We identify 3 root causes of physician hesitancy and describe how professional ethics in obstetrics should guide in reversing these root causes. They are clinical misapplications of key components of professionally responsible obstetrical practice: therapeutic nihilism, shared decision-making, and respect for patient autonomy. Therapeutic nihilism directs the obstetrician to avoid any clinical interventions during pregnancy to prevent teratogenic effects that might be unknown. Therapeutic nihilism is misapplied when there is a documented net clinical benefit with no evidence of clinical harm. Shared decision directs the obstetrician to only offer but not recommend clinical management. Shared decision-making plays a major role when there is uncertainty in clinical judgment but is misapplied when it becomes a universal model. It does not apply when there is a net clinical benefit. When there is a net clinical benefit, clinical management should be recommended, not simply offered. The ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy plays an indispensable role in decision-making with patients. It is misapplied when it is assumed that respect for autonomy requires physicians not to make recommendations and to defer to and implement patients' decisions without exception. There is evidence that the obstetrician's recommendations about the management of pregnancy are the most important factor in a pregnant woman's decision-making. Simply deferring to the patient's decisions makes for misapplied respect for patient autonomy. Obstetricians must end physician hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women by reversing these 3 root causes of physician hesitancy. Reversing the root causes of physician hesitancy is an urgent matter of patient safety. The longer physician hesitancy continues and the longer the low vaccine acceptance rate of pregnant women lasts, preventable serious diseases, deaths of pregnant women, intensive care unit admissions, stillbirths, and other maternal and fetal complications of unvaccinated women will continue to occur. Physician hesitancy should not be permitted to influence the response to future pandemics.

Sufficient informed consent to medical treatment of adults: legal and ethical perspectives from Malawi

This special communication discusses the current legal and ethical requirements for informed consent to medical treatment of adults in Malawi. It analyzes the scope of the laws and code of ethics on professional discipline, including criminal privilege for surgeries and clarifies when insufficient disclosures entitle patients to compensation under civil law. Inconsistencies and uncertainties in the law are made apparent. It evaluates to which degree disclosure standards of other Commonwealth jurisdictions (e.g. the case of Montgomery) would be suitable for the health care setting of a country like Malawi that is characterized by shortages of resources, high illiteracy rates and a communitarian cultural context. Doctor-patient communication is not alien to African culture and part of sufficient informed consent. In order to balance the need for efficiency in health care delivery, accountability for quality care, fairness and effective patient-doctor communication the authors suggest to adopt the reasonable patient test only, if a defence of heavy workload on case-to-case basis is introduced at the same time. This does not dispense the need for organisational diligence on part of the institutional health care provider within its capacity.

Ostomy and Continent Diversion Patient Bill of Rights: Research Validation of Standards of Care

An estimated 725,000 to 1 million people are living with an ostomy or continent diversion in the United States, and approximately 100,000 ostomy surgeries are performed each year in the United States. As a result of ostomy surgery, bodily waste is rerouted from its usual path because of malfunctioning parts of the urinary or digestive system. An ostomy can be temporary or permanent. The ostomy community is an underserved population of patients. United Ostomy Associations of America, Inc (UOAA), is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting quality of life for people with ostomies and continent diversions through information, support, advocacy, and collaboration. Over the years, UOAA has received hundreds of stories from people who have received inadequate care. In the United States, patients receiving medical care have certain health rights. For ostomy and continent diversion patients, these rights are known as the "You Matter! Know What to Expect and Know Your Rights-Ostomy and Continent Diversion Patient Bill of Rights" (PBOR). These rights define and provide a guide to patients and health care professionals as to what the best practices are when receiving and providing high-quality ostomy care during all phases of the surgical experience. This includes preoperative to postoperative care and throughout the life span when living with an ostomy or continent diversion. In 2020, the National Quality Forum released "The Care We Need: Driving Better Health Outcomes for People and Communities," a National Quality Task Force report that provides a road map where every person in every community can expect to consistently and predictably receive high-quality care by 2030 (thecareweneed.org). One of the core strategic objectives this report stated is to ensure appropriate, safe, and accessible care. Actionable opportunities to drive change include accelerating adoption of leading practices. The adoption of the PBOR best practices will drive the health care quality improvement change needed for the ostomy and continent diversion population. There are concerns in the ostomy and continent diversion communities among patients and health care professionals that the standards of care outlined in the PBOR are not occurring across the United States in all health care settings. There are further concerns stated by health care professionals that the patient-centered recommendations outlined in the PBOR need to be strengthened by being supported with available published health care evidence. The work of this task force was to bring together members of UOAA's Advocacy Committee, members of the Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN Society) Public Policy and Advocacy Committee, and representatives from surgical organizations and industry to create a systemic change by validating through evidence the Ostomy and Continent Diversion PBOR. Through the work of the task force, each component of the PBOR has been substantiated as evidence-based. Thus, this article validates the PBOR as a guideline for high-quality standards of ostomy care. We show that when patients receive the standards of care as outlined in the PBOR, there is improved quality of care. We can now recognize that until every ostomy or continent diversion patient receives these health care rights, in all health care settings, will they truly be realized and respected as human rights in the United States and thus people living with an ostomy or continent diversion will receive "the care they need."