Limiting Treatment in Intensive Care: Contributions and Limits of Ethics Consultation

Clinical Ethics Consultations and the Necessity of NOT Meeting Expectations: I Never Promised You a Rose Garden

Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) work in complex environments ripe with multiple types of expectations. Significantly, some are due to the perspectives of professional colleagues and the patients and families with whom CECs consult and concern how CECs can, do, or should function, thus adding to the moral complexity faced by CECs in those particular circumstances. We outline six such common expectations: Ethics Police, Ethics Equalizer, Ethics Superhero, Ethics Expediter, Ethics Healer or Ameliorator, and, finally, Ethics Expert. Framed by examples of requests for ethics consultation that illustrate each kind, along with brief descriptions, we argue that while these expectations ought to be resisted for clear and practical reasons, they also create opportunities for CECs to articulate, educate, and ultimately be responsible to the professional demands of clinical ethics work. Recognizing, acknowledging, and at times resisting those expectations thus become key activities and responsibilities in the performance of ethics consultation.

[Palliative aspects in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care medicine : Consensus paper of the DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA and DG Palliativmedizin]

The integration of palliative medicine is an important component in the treatment of various advanced diseases. While a German S3 guideline on palliative medicine exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for palliative patients presenting in the emergency department or intensive care unit is missing to date. Based on the present consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines are addressed. The timely integration of palliative care aims to improve quality of life and symptom control in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

End-of-life practices in 11 German intensive care units : Results from the ETHICUS-2 study

BACKGROUND

End-of-life care is common in German intensive care units (ICUs) but little is known about daily practice.

OBJECTIVES

To study the practice of end-of-life care.

METHODS

Prospectively planned, secondary analysis comprising the German subset of the worldwide Ethicus‑2 Study (2015-2016) including consecutive ICU patients with limitation of life-sustaining therapy or who died.

RESULTS

Among 1092 (13.7%) of 7966 patients from 11 multidisciplinary ICUs, 967 (88.6%) had treatment limitations, 92 (8.4%) died with failed CPR, and 33 (3%) with brain death. Among patients with treatment limitations, 22.3% (216/967) patients were discharged alive from the ICU. More patients had treatments withdrawn than withheld (556 [57.5%] vs. 411 [42.5%], p < 0.001). Patients with treatment limitations were older (median 73 years [interquartile range (IQR) 61-80] vs. 68 years [IQR 54-77]) and more had mental decision-making capacity (12.9 vs. 0.8%), advance directives (28.6 vs. 11.2%), and information about treatment wishes (82.7 vs 33.3%, all p < 0.001). Physicians reported discussing treatment limitations with patients with mental decision-making capacity and families (91.3 and 82.6%, respectively). Patient wishes were unknown in 41.3% of patients. The major reason for decision-making was unresponsiveness to maximal therapy (34.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment limitations are common, based on information about patients' wishes and discussion between stakeholders, patients and families. However, our findings suggest that treatment preferences of nearly half the patients remain unknown which affects guidance for treatment decisions.

Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical ethics consultations (CEC) can be complex interventions, involving multiple methods, stakeholders, and competing ethical values. Despite longstanding calls for rigorous evaluation in the field, progress has been limited. The Medical Research Council (MRC) proposed guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of complex interventions. The evaluation of CEC may benefit from application of the MRC framework to advance the transparency and methodological rigor of this field. A first step is to understand the outcomes measured in evaluations of CEC in healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this review was to identify and map the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC. The secondary objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of CEC structures, processes, and roles to enhance understanding and to inform standardization.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases to identify primary studies of CEC involving patients, substitute decision-makers and/or family members, clinicians, healthcare staff and leaders. Outcomes were mapped across five conceptual domains as identified a priori based on our clinical ethics experience and preliminary literature searches and revised based on our emerging interpretation of the data. These domains included personal factors, process factors, clinical factors, quality, and resource factors.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies were included in the review. Studies were highly heterogeneous and varied considerably regarding format and process of ethical intervention, credentials of interventionist, population of study, outcomes reported, and measures employed. In addition, few studies used validated measurement tools. The top three outcome domains that studies reported on were quality (n = 31), process factors (n = 23), and clinical factors (n = 19). The majority of studies examined multiple outcome domains. All five outcome domains were multidimensional and included a variety of subthemes.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review represents the initial phase of mapping the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC and identifying gaps in the evidence. The confirmed lack of standardization represents a hindrance to the provision of high quality intervention and CEC scientific progress. Insights gained can inform the development of a core outcome set to standardize outcome measures in CEC evaluation research and enable scientifically rigorous efficacy trials of CEC.