Nontraditional Surrogate Decision Makers for Hospitalized Older Adults

Exploring Ethical Dimensions of Physician Involvement in Requests for Organ Donation in Pediatric Brain Death

Pediatric organ transplantation remains a life-saving therapy, with donated organs being absolutely scarce resources. Efforts to both increase pediatric organ donation authorization by families of children declared dead by neurologic criteria and mitigate perception of conflicts of interest have resulted in frequent exclusion of physicians from this process. This article provides of focused review of pediatric organ donation in the setting of brain death, explores the breadth of consequences of physician exclusion in donation authorization requests, and provides an ethical framework defending physician involvement in the organ donation process for this patient population.

Willingness to Discuss End-of-Life Care Wishes Among Rural Black/African American Residents of the Alabama Black Belt

Willingness for end-of-life discussion and related factors among rural Blacks/African Americans of the Alabama Black Belt have not been well-studied. This study aims to assess their willingness for the discussion and examine its relationship with social determinants of health (SDH) and demographic factors. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a convenience sampling of 182 participants. Most participants were willing to discuss end-of-life wishes with family (77.1%) or doctors (72.1%). Controlling for demographics, results from binary logistic regressions showed those with hospice awareness were more likely to have willingness for discussion with family (OR = 10.07, p < .01) and doctors (OR = 7.23, p < .05). Those who were older (50+) were less likely to have willingness for discussion with doctors (OR = 0.19, p < .05), whereas those who were more socially isolated were less likely to have willingness for discussion with family (OR = 0.53, p < .05). Therefore, end-of-life discussion efforts should focus on older, socially isolated individuals and consider hospice awareness.

Indiana Medical Resident's Knowledge of Surrogate Decision Making Laws

INTRODUCTION

During the care of incapacitated patients, physicians, and medical residents discuss treatment options and gain consent to treat through healthcare surrogates. The purpose of this study is to ascertain medical residents' knowledge of healthcare consent laws, application during clinical practice, and appraise the education residents received regarding surrogate decision making laws.

METHODS

Beginning in February of 2018, 35 of 113 medical residents working with patients within Indiana completed a survey. The survey explored medical residents' knowledge of health care surrogate consent laws utilized in Indiana hospitals and Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals via clinical vignettes.

RESULTS

Only 22.9% of medical residents knew the default state law in Indiana did not have a hierarchy for settling disputes among surrogates. Medical residents correctly identified which family members could participate in medical decisions 86% of the time. Under the Veterans Affairs surrogate law, medical residents correctly identified appropriate family members or friends 50% of the time and incorrectly acknowledged the chief decision makers during a dispute 30% of the time. All medical residents report only having little or some knowledge of surrogate decision making laws with only 43% having remembered receiving surrogate decision making training during their residency.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate that medical residents lack understanding of surrogate decision making laws. In order to ensure medical decisions are made by the appropriate surrogates and patient autonomy is upheld, an educational intervention is required to train medical residents about surrogate decision making laws and how they are used in clinical practice.

Making Medical Treatment Decisions for Unrepresented Patients in the ICU. An Official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society Policy Statement

Background and Rationale: ICU clinicians regularly care for patients who lack capacity, an applicable advance directive, and an available surrogate decision-maker. Although there is no consensus on terminology, we refer to these patients as “unrepresented.” There is considerable controversy about how to make treatment decisions for these patients, and there is significant variability in both law and clinical practice.

Purpose and Objectives: This multisociety statement provides clinicians and hospital administrators with recommendations for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Methods: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary expert committee developed this policy statement by using an iterative consensus process with a diverse working group representing critical care medicine, palliative care, pediatric medicine, nursing, social work, gerontology, geriatrics, patient advocacy, bioethics, philosophy, elder law, and health law.

Main Results: The committee designed its policy recommendations to promote five ethical goals: 1) to protect highly vulnerable patients, 2) to demonstrate respect for persons, 3) to provide appropriate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influence of competing obligations and conflicting interests. These recommendations also are intended to strike an appropriate balance between excessive and insufficient procedural safeguards. The committee makes the following recommendations: 1) institutions should offer advance care planning to prevent patients at high risk for becoming unrepresented from meeting this definition; 2) institutions should implement strategies to determine whether seemingly unrepresented patients are actually unrepresented, including careful capacity assessments and diligent searches for potential surrogates; 3) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using input from a diverse interprofessional, multidisciplinary committee rather than ad hoc by treating clinicians; 4) institutions should use all available information on the patient’s preferences and values to guide treatment decisions; 5) institutions should manage decision-making for unrepresented patients using a fair process that comports with procedural due process; 6) institutions should employ this fair process even when state law authorizes procedures with less oversight.

Conclusions: This multisociety statement provides guidance for clinicians and hospital administrators on medical decision-making for unrepresented patients in the critical care setting.

Are the "Right" People Selected for First Disclosures About Suicidal Thoughts? Exploring What We Know About Advance Care Planning in the Context of Safety Planning

Nominating primary confidants (i.e., safety plan nominees) is central to safety planning for suicide but there is a dearth of research about such confidants-a serious oversight given their high-leverage position to affect pathways into clinical care. Informed by advance care planning (ACP) work, this study examined differences between social network members who were and were not identified as primary confidants on attributes that could impact their effectiveness in a helping role. Using social network methodology, information was collected from 41 individuals with affective disorders about the 332 people and relationships in their networks. Logistic regression analysis revealed that being perceived as capable of managing stress and prioritizing the participant's best interests over one's own increased the odds of being a primary confidant. Clinicians working with suicidal individuals may benefit from integrating ACP principles-which recognize the thoughtful selection of nominees based on specific attributes-into their safety planning procedures.