A pragmatic look at hospital reengineering. Successful reengineering requires the right leadership

The market turbulence of recent years has made healthcare leaders particularly open to the management tool called "reengineering." Unfortunately, many such efforts fail because they do not go beyond simple cost cutting to create processes that, by adding value to product, attract customers. A healthcare organization planning reengineering should: Find leaders who will educate themselves in reengineering tools and techniques, talk to both proponents and opponents of reengineering, consult those staff members who are most knowledgeable about the organization's processes, and skillfully communicate the organization's vision for the future. Determine its customers' needs by, first, learning who its customers actually are and, second, consulting with them. Reengineered processes should have the built-in data-collecting and reporting mechanisms that will help the organization meet customers' standards. Get the organizations' managers on board. Since satisfying customers' needs is the reason for reengineering, the organization must not let hidden agendas torpedo the effort. Redesign its processes. To accomplish this, the organization must allocate sufficient resources for the redesign effort, assign talented employees to it, and overcome such organizational limitations as "innumeracy" among its work force.

Mentally disabled research subjects. The enduring policy issues

Mentally disabled adults often serve as subjects in research on mental illness, developmental disabilities, dementia, and other conditions associated with mental impairment. Since US regulatory policy fails to resolve many ethical issues presented by such research, investigators and institutional review boards must determine the appropriate standards and procedures for studies involving adults with mental disabilities. Procedures for capacity assessment and information disclosure should enhance the autonomy of capable subjects and accurately identify subjects incapable of independent choice. Research teams should inform proxy decision makers of their ethical responsibities. Decisionally incapable adults objecting to research involvement should rarely be included in studies. Researchers, institutional review boards, advocacy groups, and federal officials should collaborate to improve evaluation of risks and potential benefits to decisionally incapable subjects. These groups should also seek consensus on appropriate risk limits in studies presenting no prospect of direct benefit to decisionally incapable subjects. Finally, subject populations should be represented in research planning and review activities.

The incompetent patient on the slippery slope

Most patients suffering from progressive dementia have thoughts, emotions, perspectives, and perceptions of a world of experience. Decisions about life-sustaining treatment should incorporate a principled approach to evaluating what life is like for these patients.

Sanctions for research misconduct: a legal perspective

The author discusses the legal principles that could assist in the design and administration of the official response to conduct found to threaten the integrity of the scientific process. The primary emphasis is on the principles that shape decisions about punishment. In the present climate of uncertainty about misconduct, it is difficult to adopt fair and consistent approaches to the selection of sanctions and other remedial actions. Officials have taken a variety of actions in response to unacceptable research behavior. Some federal actions have involved proceedings to recover the offending grant recipients' federal funds, prohibiting them from receiving federal grants or contracts for a set period, terminating or withholding ongoing grant support, and mandating future supervision of the offenders' research conduct; and universities have denied or revoked tenure, required or accepted retirement, and disclosed misconduct findings to potential future employers. Three types of legal remedies seem to have influenced the selection of sanctions in past cases: (1) the quasi-contractual legal remedy of restitution, (2) the philosophy of "just deserts," or retribution, based on the largely intuitive idea that the individual who engages in criminal conduct deserves punishment, and (3) deterrence of misconduct. Each type has a range of considerations and implications, and officials should thoughtfully consider the appropriate role of each, because their selection of sanctions will probably have a significant effect on the research community's perceptions of the system's fairness and efficacy.

Hypercalcemia of advanced malignancy: decision making and the quality of death

Hypercalcemia is a common complication of certain advanced malignancies and although not therapeutically difficult, its presence raises complex ethical issues. Treatment of this condition is most easily justified when the patient is not terminal, the benefits are tangible, and the patient agrees with therapy. Withholding treatment is defensible medically, legally, and morally when a terminal situation is present, when drawbacks exceed the benefits, and when an informed patient declines therapy. Hypercalcemia is one of a number of conditions of dying that can be controlled by the physician. The physician's decision to treat such a condition, in part, depends upon his or her view of a good death. Further study is needed to clarify and avoid those situations of dying which involve suffering. Physicians must begin this difficult analysis and dialogue if they are to fulfill their obligation to minimize suffering in all patients.

Developing standards in animal research review

Thirty-two institutional animal care and use committees reviewed 4 hypothetic protocols involving experimental procedures frequently conducted on animals. Committees were in general agreement on the need to refine hypothetic protocols to minimize pain, distress, and other harm to laboratory animals. All but 2 committees sought modifications in each protocol, and in numerous instances, committees would not approve a protocol without major modifications. The committee responses delineated emerging standards governing specific areas of animal use, such as antibody production, induced disease, surgery, physical restraint, and behavioral conditioning. Committees had less consensus in their approach to assessing the justification for laboratory animal use. Apparently, this component of committee responsibilities presented the major conceptual and practical difficulties for committees engaged in animal research review.

Measuring merit in animal research

Merit review of scientific projects involving laboratory animals is a central issue in the current debate over the ethics of animal experimentation. In this essay, I examine several conceptual, regulatory, and practical problems inherent in the merit review process. Contemporary challenges to the existing merit review system and suggestions for reform are also discussed. The essay concludes with comments on legal and political questions relevant to the future of merit assessment.

Withholding medical treatment from the severely demented patient. Decisional processes and cost implications

We performed an observational study to determine the prevalence of severe dementia in a general medicine unit, the categories of acute medical care provided to these patients, the process by which treatment decisions are made, and their cost implications. The prevalence of severe dementia was 4.4%. The patients from whom some form of acute medical care was withheld (26 [45.6%] of 57) were more severely ill at admission and had a mortality rate five times higher than those who received full care. Physicians cited family wishes in 75.9% of the decisions to limit care but in only 10.9% of the decisions to give full care. The only differences in charges incurred were due to differential mortality rates in individuals from whom care was withheld. We recommend that hospitals develop and implement protocols for decision making in the care of the severely demented to promote open discussions among providers and families and to increase family contributions to decision making. We believe that the extension of this consultative approach to decisions involving severely demented patients may have the virtue of combining more humane care with more cost-effective care.