[Ethics consultations in intensive care medicine]

Outcomes of clinical ethics support near the end of life: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical ethics support services have been advocated in recent decades. In clinical practice, clinical ethics support services are often requested for difficult decisions near the end of life. However, their contribution to improving healthcare has been questioned and demands for evaluation have been put forward. Research indicates that there are considerable challenges associated with defining adequate outcomes for clinical ethics support services. In this systematic review, we report findings of qualitative studies and surveys, which have been conducted to evaluate clinical ethics support services near the end of life.

METHODS

Electronic databases and other sources were queried from 1970 to May 2018. Two authors screened studies independently. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For each arm of the review, an individual synthesis was performed. Prospero ID: CRD42016036241.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical approval is not needed as it is a systematic review of published literature.

RESULTS

In all, 2088 hits on surveys and 2786 on qualitative studies were found. After screening, nine surveys and four qualitative studies were included. Survey studies report overall positive findings using a very wide and heterogeneous range of outcomes. Negative results were reported only occasionally. However, methodological quality and conceptual justification of used outcomes was often weak and limits generalizability of results.

CONCLUSION

Evidence points to positive outcomes of clinical ethics support services. However, methodological quality needs to be improved. Further qualitative or mixed-method research on evaluating clinical ethics support services may contribute to the development of evaluating outcomes of clinical ethics support services by means of broaden the range of appropriate (process-oriented) outcomes of (different types of) clinical ethics support services.

[Ethical case discussions in the intensive care unit : from testing to routine]

BACKGROUND

The daily work of many healthcare professionals has become more complex and demanding in recent years. Apart from purely medical issues, ethical questions and problems arise quite often. Managing these problems requires ethical knowledge. Questions about the usefulness of a therapy and treatment occur especially at the end of life. So-called medical futility, a useless futile therapy, is often perceived by nurses and physicians in intensive care units who themselves often develop symptoms of depression or burnout. The clinical ethical model METAP (acronym from module, ethics, therapy decision, allocation and process) provides methods and criteria that allow the clinical team to treat and solve ethical issues according to a solution-oriented approach. The ethical decision-making of this model addresses these issues according to a series of sequential stages in the form of a so-called escalation model. When it is not possible to tackle and solve an ethical problem or dilemma in one stage, one moves to the next. The implementation of this approach in everyday practice requires the commitment of all team members in addition to certain basic conditions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a surgical intensive care unit a fixed date in the schedule is reserved for ethical case discussions (level 3 of the escalation model). At this level a team member who has been specified according to a quarterly plan is responsible for the organization and performance of the discussion. All protocols of the 44 ethical case discussions in 41 patients between January 2011 and July 2012 were collected and summarized. A short questionnaire to all participants recorded their assessment of the benefits for the patient and the team as well as their perception of personal stress reduction. Also queried was the impact of this method on the collaboration between nurses and physicians and the ethical competence.

RESULTS

Ethical case discussions among the care team took place regularly (44 case discussions between January 2011 and June 2012). The duration of these discussions ranged from 30 to 60 min. On average 6.2 persons took part, including 2.7 nurses and 3.2 physicians. Of the 41 patients (16 female, 25 male) for whom a discussion was carried out, 23 died during the continued hospital stay. The respondents (response rate 52 %) assessed the benefit for patients and team as high (slightly higher benefit for physicians than nurses) and 55 % of physicians and 71 % of nurses perceived a reduction in the burden of decision-making in difficult cases due to the case discussions. All physicians and 66 % of the nurses reported an improvement in the cooperation between the professional groups and 80 % of the nurses and more than half of the physicians noticed an increase in their own ethical competence.

CONCLUSION

A methodically structured ethical decision-making process can and should be integrated into the clinical routine. This process requires a fixed place in everyday practice and the defined responsibility for the actual organization and performance. Support by medical and nursing management personnel is also essential for the implementation. The regular occurrence of ethical case discussions among the care team relieves the participants and improves collaboration between nurses and physicians.

[Between patient autonomy and the ethics of care : difficult end-of-life decision-making in intensive care]

The article illustrates the ethical principles and the legal context of end-of-life decision-making in the intensive care unit (ICU). After a long period of preference for medical paternalism, patient autonomy has now developed into the standard for medical decision-making. Medical interventions are justified by medical indications and patient consent. A competent patient may make a decision which is unreasonable from the physician's view. A mentally incompetent patient will can be explored by studying the written anticipated advance directive in which the patient has formulated value priorities. The binding character of patient advance directives was regulated in German law in 2009; the decision has to be made in a dialogue between the physician and the proxy. A judgment of the German High Court in 2010 confirmed that even an active withdrawal of therapeutic measures, such as mechanical ventilation is legal.