Inter-physician variability in strategies linked to treatment limitations after severe traumatic brain injury; proactivity or wait-and-see

Organizational ethics in urgent transfers of severely disabled people to intensive care units - a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Urgent transfers of severely impaired patients with chronic neurological disability (PwND) from a neurological physical and rehabilitation medicine (nPRM) to an intensive care unit (ICU) or an emergency room (ER) served as the basis for this study. We hypothesized that human and structural factors interfered with but were not directly related to the acute context.

METHODS

We decided to use a qualitative methodology, based on in-depth interviews with 16 ICU/ER physicians. We used mixed bottom-up and top-down methods. We interpreted our data using a thematic approach based on the key principles of grounded theory, which were modified with consideration of the literature.

RESULTS

Three main domains emerged. The impact of the clinical setting notably implied the patient's clinical typology between the acute event and the chronic background, but also bed availability. Key elements of the telephone negotiation were confidence and perceived usefulness of the transfer. Finally, the otherness of some categories of patients, transferred with more difficulty, involved those with cognitive impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

The existence of healthcare pathways for many years has created an organizational culture between departments of nPRM and ICUs. But urgent transfers also imply organizational ethics, as a balance should be struck between utility and equity. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONStructural and human factors interfere in urgent transfers, involving the settings within health pathways, the key elements of negotiation to get confidence and a perceived utility of transfer, and certain categories of people, especially those with cognitive impairment.Transfers that imply negotiation between practitioners from physical and rehabilitation medicine and intensive care unit departments, lead to a need of organizational ethics, as a balance should be struck between the principles of utility and equity.The development of facilitating tools such as a commitment charter is of paramount importance as it can support ethical decision-making.

The neuroethics of disorders of consciousness: a brief history of evolving ideas

Neuroethical questions raised by recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of consciousness are rapidly expanding, increasingly relevant, and yet underexplored. The aim of this thematic review is to provide a clinically applicable framework for understanding the current taxonomy of disorders of consciousness and to propose an approach to identifying and critically evaluating actionable neuroethical issues that are frequently encountered in research and clinical care for this vulnerable population. Increased awareness of these issues and clarity about opportunities for optimizing ethically-responsible care in this domain are especially timely given recent surges in critically ill patients with unusually prolonged disorders of consciousness associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) around the world. We begin with an overview of the field of neuroethics: what it is, its history and evolution in the context of biomedical ethics at large. We then explore nomenclature used in disorders of consciousness, covering categories proposed by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, including definitions of terms such as coma, the vegetative state, unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, minimally conscious state, covert consciousness, and the confusional state. We discuss why these definitions matter, and why there has been such evolution in this nosology over the years, from Jennett and Plum in 1972 to the Multi-Society Task Force in 1994, the Aspen Working Group in 2002 and up until the 2018 American and 2020 European Disorders of Consciousness guidelines. We then move to a discussion of clinical aspects of disorders of consciousness, the natural history of recovery, and ethical issues that arise within the context of caring for persons with disorders of consciousness. We conclude with a discussion of key challenges associated with assessing residual consciousness in disorders of consciousness, potential solutions and future directions, including integration of crucial disability rights perspectives.