Evolution of medical ethics in resuscitation and end of life

Physicians' perspectives on different therapeutic approaches for aluminum phosphide poisoning and their relevant outcomes

Background

Aluminum phosphide is a highly toxic pesticide that results in high mortality. To date, there is neither a definitive antidote nor a unified protocol for managing acute aluminum phosphide poisoning.

Objectives

This cross-sectional questionnaire-based study aims to explore different management approaches and rely on the expertise of Egyptian medical professionals to enhance the prognosis for acute aluminum phosphide poisoning.

Subjects and methods

A self-administered questionnaire was formulated and electronically distributed according to published literature and experience of senior physicians.

Results and conclusions

Responses were received from 151 physicians from 10 governorates. Management modalities were variable among respondents. Noradrenaline was used by 90.7% of respondents with no fixed-dose regimen. In all, 84.1% of participants utilized oil in gastrointestinal decontamination; paraffin oil was the most used solution. Overall, 92.1, 61.6, 46.4, and 34.4% of participants used sodium bicarbonate, proton pump inhibitors, IV magnesium sulfate, and antioxidants, respectively. Regarding the frequency of acute aluminum phosphide poisoning, 47% of participants managed these cases daily or a few times a week. Participants' responses denoted a poor prognosis of acute aluminum phosphide poisoning, and high percentages attributed the prognosis to exposure factors rather than treatment modalities. Statistical analysis revealed that using oil in gastrointestinal decontamination improved the outcome by 4.62-fold. Clinical toxicologists were more likely to rescue ≥ 30% of the cases about 3-fold (2.97) than other specialties. Clinical toxicologists used oil in gastrointestinal decontamination, magnesium sulfate, and antioxidant therapy and calculated base deficit before administration of sodium bicarbonate by 7.70-, 5.30-, 3.26-, and 2.08-fold than other specialties.

Ethical considerations in the prehospital treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A multi-centre, qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Prehospital emergency physicians have to navigate complex decision-making in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) treatment that includes ethical considerations. This study explores Danish prehospital physicians' experiences of ethical issues influencing their decision-making during OHCA.

METHODS

We conducted a multisite ethnographic study. Through convenience sampling, we included 17 individual interviews with prehospital physicians and performed 22 structured observations on the actions of the prehospital personnel during OHCAs. We collected data during more than 800 observation hours in the Danish prehospital setting between December 2019 and April 2022. Data were analysed with thematic analysis.

RESULTS

All physicians experienced ethical considerations that influenced their decision-making in a complex interrelated process. We identified three overarching themes in the ethical considerations: Expectations towards patient prognosis and expectations from relatives, bystanders, and colleagues involved in the cardiac arrest; the values and beliefs of the physician and values and beliefs of others involved in the cardiac arrest treatment; and dilemmas encountered in decision-making such as conflicting values.

CONCLUSION

This extensive qualitative study provides an in-depth look at aspects of ethical considerations in decision-making in prehospital resuscitation and found aspects of ethical decision-making that could be harmful to both physicians and patients, such as difficulties in handling advance directives and potential unequal outcomes of the decision-making. The results call for multifaceted interventions on a wider societal level with a focus on advance care planning, education of patients and relatives, and interventions towards prehospital clinicians for a better understanding and awareness of ethical aspects of decision-making.

Resuscitation Preferences of Older Acutely Admitted Medical and Mentally Competent Patients with One and Six Months Follow-up

AIM

Determining patients' cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) preferences in the emergency department (ED) is common practice but the stability of these preferences and their recollection by patients has been questioned. Therefore, this study assessed the stability and recall of CPR preferences of older patients at and following ED discharge.

METHODS

This survey-based cohort study was conducted between February and September 2020 at three EDs in Denmark. It consecutively asked mentally competent patients aged 65 years or older who were admitted to hospital through the ED and then one and six months later "In your current state of health, do you wish that physicians should try to intervene if your heart stops beating?" Possible responses were confined to "definitely yes", "definitely no", "uncertain", and "prefer not to answer".

RESULTS

In total, 3688 patients admitted to hospital via the ED patients were screened, 1766 were eligible and 491 (27.8%) were included: median age was 76 (IQR 71-82) years, and 257 (52.3%) were men. One third of patients who expressed definite yes or no preferences in ED had changed their preference at one month follow-up. Only 90 (27.4%) and 94 (35.7%) patients recalled their preferences at one and six months follow-up, respectively.

CONCLUSION

and Relevance In this study, one-in-three older ED patients who initially expressed definite resuscitation preferences had changed their minds at one month follow-up. Preferences were more stable at six months but only a minority were able to recall their preferences.

A Systematic Review of Stakeholder Perspectives of Dignity and Assisted Dying

INTRODUCTION

The debate on assisted dying and its components, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has evolved with the emergence of the right to dignity and the wish to hasten death (WTHD). Whilst shaped by local legal and sociocultural considerations, appreciation of how patients, healthcare professionals and lawmakers relate notions of dignity to self-concepts of personhood and the desire for assisted dying will better inform and direct support of patients.

METHODS

Guided by the Systematic Evidence Based Approach, a systematic scoping review (SSR in SEBA) on perspectives of dignity, WTHD and personhood featured in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Scopus databases and four key Palliative Care journals was conducted. The review hinged on the following questions: "what is the relationship between dignity and the wish to hasten death (WTHD) in the assisted dying debate?", "how is dignity conceptualised by patients with WTHD?" and "what are prevailing perspectives on the role of assisted dying in maintaining a dying patient's dignity?"

RESULTS

6947 abstracts were identified, 663 full text articles reviewed, and 88 articles included. The four domains identified include 1) concepts of dignity through the lens of the Ring Theory of Personhood (RToP) including their various definitions and descriptions; 2) the relationship between dignity, WTHD and assisted dying with loss of dignity and autonomy foregrounded; 3) stakeholder perspectives for and against assisted dying including those of patient, healthcare provider and lawmaker; and 4) other dignity-conserving measures as alternatives to assisted dying.

CONCLUSION

Concepts of dignity constantly evolve throughout the patient's end of life journey. Understanding when and how these concepts of personhood change and trigger the fear of a loss of dignity or intractable suffering could direct timely, individualised and appropriate person-centred dignity conserving measures. We believe an RToP-based tool could fulfil this role and further study into the design of this tool is planned.

Evolution of European Resuscitation and End-of-Life Practices from 2015 to 2019: A Survey-Based Comparative Evaluation

BACKGROUND

In concordance with the results of large, observational studies, a 2015 European survey suggested variation in resuscitation/end-of-life practices and emergency care organization across 31 countries. The current survey-based study aimed to comparatively assess the evolution of practices from 2015 to 2019, especially in countries with "low" (i.e., average or lower) 2015 questionnaire domain scores.

METHODS

The 2015 questionnaire with additional consensus-based questions was used. The 2019 questionnaire covered practices/decisions related to end-of-life care (domain A); determinants of access to resuscitation/post-resuscitation care (domain B); diagnosis of death/organ donation (domain C); and emergency care organization (domain D). Responses from 25 countries were analyzed. Positive or negative responses were graded by 1 or 0, respectively. Domain scores were calculated by summation of practice-specific response grades.

RESULTS

Domain A and B scores for 2015 and 2019 were similar. Domain C score decreased by 1 point [95% confidence interval (CI): 1-3; p = 0.02]. Domain D score increased by 2.6 points (95% CI: 0.2-5.0; p = 0.035); this improvement was driven by countries with "low" 2015 domain D scores. In countries with "low" 2015 domain A scores, domain A score increased by 5.5 points (95% CI: 0.4-10.6; p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In 2019, improvements in emergency care organization and an increasing frequency of end-of-life practices were observed primarily in countries with previously "low" scores in the corresponding domains of the 2015 questionnaire.

Limiting treatment in pre-hospital care: A prospective, observational multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Data are scarce on the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies and limitation of care orders (LCOs) during physician-staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) missions. We investigated LCOs and the quality of information available when physicians made treatment decisions in pre-hospital care.

METHODS

A prospective, nationwide, multicentre study including all Finnish physician-staffed HEMS bases during a 6-month study period. All HEMS missions where a patient had pre-existing LCOs and/or a new LCO were included.

RESULTS

There were 335 missions with LCOs, which represented 5.7% of all HEMS missions (n = 5895). There were 181 missions with pre-existing LCOs, and a total of 170 new LCOs were issued. Usually, the pre-existing LCO was a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order only (n = 133, 74%). The most frequent new LCO was 'termination of cardiopulmonary resuscitation' only (n = 61, 36%), while 'no intensive care' combined with some other LCO was almost as common (n = 54, 32%). When issuing a new LCO for patients who did not have any preceding LCOs (n = 153), in every other (49%) case the physicians thought that the patient should have already had an LCO. When the physician made treatment decisions, patients' background information from on-scene paramedics was available in 260 (78%) of the LCO missions, while patients' medical records were available in 67 (20%) of the missions.

CONCLUSION

Making LCOs or treating patients with pre-existing LCOs is an integral part of HEMS physicians' work, with every twentieth mission involving LCO patients. The new LCOs mostly concerned withholding or withdrawal of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intensive care.

Conditional Permission to Not Resuscitate: A Middle Ground for Resuscitation

Every decision to perform or withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has ethical implications that are not always well understood. Value-based decisions with far-reaching consequences are made rapidly, based on incomplete or possibly inaccurate information. For some patients, skilled, timely CPR can restore spontaneous circulation, but for others, success may either be unobtainable or bring serious iatrogenic consequences. Because CPR is an aggressive process yielding mixed results, patients must be informed about the likelihood of its positive and adverse outcomes. In considering whether to accept or refuse it, patients should also be given a realistic set of alternatives. Current protocols limit patients' options by restricting them to a choice between accepting or refusing CPR. Adding a "middle" code, DNAR-X (Do Not Attempt Resuscitation-Except), significantly expands patients' right to control what happens to their bodies by allowing them to stipulate CPR in some circumstances but not in others.

Ethical challenges in resuscitation

PURPOSE

A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation.

METHODS

Following agreement on the article's outline, subgroups of 2-3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered.

RESULTS

Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals' education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.