Vagueness in Goals-of-Care Conferences for Critically Ill Patients: Types of Hedge Language Used by Physicians

OBJECTIVES

Hedge language is a category of language that refers to words or phrases that make statements "fuzzier." We sought to understand how physicians use hedge language during goals-of-care conferences in the ICU.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded goals-of-care conferences in the ICU.

SETTING

Thirteen ICUs at six academic and community medical centers in the United States.

PATIENTS

Conferences were between clinicians and surrogates of incapacitated, critically ill adults.

INTERVENTIONS

Four investigators performed a qualitative content analysis of transcripts using deductive followed by inductive methods to identify types of hedge language used by physicians, then coded all instances of hedge language across 40 transcripts to characterize general patterns in usage.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 types of hedge language: numeric probabilistic statement ("there's an 80% chance"), qualitative probabilistic statement ("there's a good chance"), nonprobabilistic uncertainty statement ("hard to say for her"), plausibility shield ("we expect"), emotion-based statement ("we're concerned"), attribution shield ("according to Dr. X"), adaptor ("sort of"), metaphor ("the chips are stacking up against her"), time reference ("too soon to tell"), and contingency statement ("if we are lucky"). For most types of hedge language, we identified distinct subtypes. Physicians used hedge language frequently in every transcript (median: 74 hedges per transcript) to address diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. We observed large variation in how frequently each type and subtype of hedge language was used.

CONCLUSIONS

Hedge language is ubiquitous in physician-surrogate communication during goals-of-care conferences in the ICU and can be used to introduce vagueness to statements in ways beyond expressing uncertainty. It is not known how hedge language impacts decision-making or clinician-surrogate interactions. This study prioritizes specific types of hedge language for future research based on their frequency and novelty.

Stronger regulation of AI in biomedicine

Regulatory agencies need to ensure the safety and equity of AI in biomedicine, and the time to do so is now.

"No Escalation of Treatment" Designations: A Multi-institutional Exploratory Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

No Escalation of Treatment (NoET) designations are used in ICUs internationally to limit treatment for critically ill patients. However, they are the subject of debate in the literature and have not been qualitatively studied.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do physicians understand and perceive NoET designations, especially regarding their usefulness and associated challenges? What mechanisms do hospitals provide to facilitate the use of NoET designations?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Qualitative study at seven US hospitals, employing semistructured interviews with 30 physicians and review of relevant institutional records (eg, hospital policies, screenshots of ordering menus in the electronic health record).

RESULTS

At all hospitals, participants reported the use of NoET designations, which were understood to mean that providers should withhold new or higher-intensity interventions ("escalations") but not withdraw ongoing interventions. Three hospitals provided a specific mechanism for designating a patient as NoET (eg, a DNR/Do Not Escalate code status order); at the remaining hospitals, a variety of informal methods (eg, verbal hand-offs) were used. We identified five functions of NoET designations: (1) Defining an intermediate point of treatment limitation, (2) helping physicians navigate prearrest clinical decompensations, (3) helping surrogate decision-makers transition toward comfort care, (4) preventing patient harm from invasive measures, and (5) conserving critical care resources. Across hospitals, participants reported implementation challenges related to the ambiguity in meaning of NoET designations.

INTERPRETATION

Despite ongoing debate, NoET designations are used in a varied sample of hospitals and are perceived as having multiple functions, suggesting they may fulfill an important need in the care of critically ill patients, especially at the end of life. The use of NoET designations can be improved through the implementation of a formal mechanism that encourages consistency across providers and clarifies the meaning of "escalation" for each patient.

Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials

Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) designs are increasingly employed in pragmatic research; they differ from traditional parallel cluster randomized trials in which an intervention is delivered to a subset of clusters, but not to all. In a SW-CRT, all clusters receive the intervention under investigation by the end of the study. This approach is thought to avoid ethical concerns about the denial of a desired intervention to participants in control groups. Such concerns have been cited in the literature as a primary motivation for choosing SW-CRT design, however SW-CRTs raise additional ethical concerns related to the delayed implementation of an intervention and consent. Yet, PCT investigators may choose SW-CRT designs simply because they are concerned that other study designs are infeasible. In this paper, we examine justifications for the use of SW-CRT study design, over other designs, by drawing on the experience of the National Institutes of Health's Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (NIH Collaboratory) with five pragmatic SW-CRTs. We found that decisions to use SW-CRT design were justified by practical and epistemic reasons rather than ethical ones. These include concerns about feasibility, the heterogeneity of cluster characteristics, and the desire for simultaneous clinical evaluation and implementation. In this paper we compare the potential benefits of SW-CRTs against the ethical and epistemic challenges brought forth by the design and suggest that the choice of SW-CRT design must balance epistemic, feasibility and ethical justifications. Moreover, given their complexity, such studies need rigorous and informed ethical oversight.

Revise the UDDA to Align the Law with Practice through Neuro-Respiratory Criteria

Although the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) has served as a model statute for 40 years, there is a growing recognition that the law must be updated. One issue being considered by the Uniform Law Commission's Drafting Committee to revise the UDDA is whether the text “all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem” should be changed. Some argue that the absence of diabetes insipidus indicates that some brain functioning continues in many individuals who otherwise meet the “accepted medical standards” like the American Academy of Neurology's. The concern is that the legal criteria and the medical standards used to determine death by neurologic criteria are not aligned. We argue for the revision of the UDDA to more accurately specify legal criteria that align with the medical standards: brain injury leading to permanent loss of the capacity for consciousness, the ability to breathe spontaneously, and brainstem reflexes. We term these criteria neurorespiratory criteria and show that they are well-supported in the literature for physiologic and social reasons justifying their use in the law.

Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies

Covid-19 raised many novel ethical issues including regarding the allocation of opportunities to participate in clinical trials during a public health emergency. In this article, we explore how hospitals that have a scarcity of trial opportunities, either overall or in a specific trial, can equitably allocate those opportunities in the context of an urgent medical need with limited therapeutic interventions. We assess the three main approaches to allocating trial opportunities discussed in the literature: patient choice, physician referral, and randomization/lottery. As, we argue, none of the three typical approaches are ethically ideal for allocating trial opportunities in the pandemic context, many hospitals have instead implemented hybrid solutions. We offer practical guidance to support those continuing to face these challenges, and we analyze options for the future.

Recognizing the Role of Language in the Hidden Curriculum of Undergraduate Medical Education: Implications for Equity in Medical Training

Medical education involves a transition from "outsider" to "insider" status, which entails both rigorous formal training and an inculturation of values and norms via a hidden curriculum. Within this transition, the ability to "talk the talk" designates an individual as an insider, and learning to talk this talk is a key component of professional socialization. This Article uses the framework of "patterns of medical language" to explore the role of language in the hidden curriculum of medical education, exploring how students must learn to recognize and participate fluently within patterns of medical language to be acknowledged and evaluated as competent trainees. The authors illustrate this by reframing the Association of American Medical Colleges' Core Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering Residency as a series of overlapping patterns of medical language that students are expected to master before residency. The authors propose that many of these patterns of medical language are learned through trial and error, taught via a hidden curriculum rather than through explicit instruction. Medical students come from increasingly diverse backgrounds and therefore begin medical training further from or closer to insider status. Thus, evaluative practices based on patterns of medical language, which are not explicitly taught, may exacerbate and perpetuate existing inequities in medical education. This Article aims to bring awareness to the importance of medical language within the hidden curriculum of medical education, to the role of medical language as a marker of insider status, and to the centrality of medical language in evaluative practices. The authors conclude by offering possible approaches to ameliorate the inequities that may exist due to current evaluative practices.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.

Ethical issues in using ambient intelligence in health-care settings

Ambient intelligence is increasingly finding applications in health-care settings, such as helping to ensure clinician and patient safety by monitoring staff compliance with clinical best practices or relieving staff of burdensome documentation tasks. Ambient intelligence involves using contactless sensors and contact-based wearable devices embedded in health-care settings to collect data (eg, imaging data of physical spaces, audio data, or body temperature), coupled with machine learning algorithms to efficiently and effectively interpret these data. Despite the promise of ambient intelligence to improve quality of care, the continuous collection of large amounts of sensor data in health-care settings presents ethical challenges, particularly in terms of privacy, data management, bias and fairness, and informed consent. Navigating these ethical issues is crucial not only for the success of individual uses, but for acceptance of the field as a whole.

Clinical Application of Computational Methods in Precision Oncology: A Review

Importance

There is an enormous and growing amount of data available from individual cancer cases, which makes the work of clinical oncologists more demanding. This data challenge has attracted engineers to create software that aims to improve cancer diagnosis or treatment. However, the move to use computers in the oncology clinic for diagnosis or treatment has led to instances of premature or inappropriate use of computational predictive systems.

Objective

To evaluate best practices for developing and assessing the clinical utility of predictive computational methods in oncology.

Evidence Review

The National Cancer Policy Forum and the Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a workshop to examine the use of multidimensional data derived from patients with cancer and the computational methods used to analyze these data. The workshop convened diverse stakeholders and experts, including computer scientists, oncology clinicians, statisticians, patient advocates, industry leaders, ethicists, leaders of health systems (academic and community based), private and public health insurance carriers, federal agencies, and regulatory authorities. Key characteristics for successful computational oncology were considered in 3 thematic areas: (1) data quality, completeness, sharing, and privacy; (2) computational methods for analysis, interpretation, and use of oncology data; and (3) clinical infrastructure and expertise for best use of computational precision oncology.

Findings

Quality control was found to be essential across all stages, from data collection to data processing, management, and use. Collecting a standardized parsimonious data set at every cancer diagnosis and restaging could enhance reliability and completeness of clinical data for precision oncology. Data completeness refers to key data elements such as information about cancer diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, while data quality depends on whether appropriate variables have been measured in valid and reliable ways. Collecting data from diverse populations can reduce the risk of creating invalid and biased algorithms. Computational systems that aid clinicians should be classified as software as a medical device and thus regulated according to the potential risk posed. To facilitate appropriate use of computational methods that interpret high-dimensional data in oncology, treating physicians need access to multidisciplinary teams with broad expertise and deep training among a subset of clinical oncology fellows in clinical informatics.

Conclusions and Relevance

Workshop discussions suggested best practices in demonstrating the clinical utility of predictive computational methods for diagnosing or treating cancer.

Genetic disease and intellectual disability as contraindications to transplant listing in the United States: A survey of heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant programs

Discrimination based on disability is prohibited in organ transplantation, yet studies suggest it continues in listing practices for intellectual disability and genetic diseases. It is not known if this differs between adult and pediatric programs, or by organ type. We performed an online, forced-choice survey of psychosocial listing criteria for adult and pediatric heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant programs in the United States. Of 650 programs contacted, 343 (52.8%) submitted complete. A minority of programs had formal listing guidelines for any condition considered (Down Syndrome, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Becker Muscular Dystrophy, DiGeorge Syndrome, and Wolf Hirschhorn Syndrome; and mild [IQ < 70] and severe [IQ < 35] intellectual disability), although a majority had encountered most. Pediatric programs were significantly (P < .02) more lenient in the level of contraindication to listing for all genetic conditions considered except Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, and for mild and severe intellectual disability. Level of contraindication differed significantly by organ type (heart, lung, liver, and kidney) for Duchenne Muscular dystrophy (P = <.001), Becker Muscular Dystrophy (P < .001), DiGeorge Syndrome (P < .001), Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (P = .0012), and severe intellectual disability (P < .001). There is significant variation among transplant programs in availability of guidelines for as well as listing practices regarding genetic diseases and intellectual disability, differing by both adult vs pediatric program, and organ type. Programs with absolute contraindications to listing for specific genetic diseases or intellectual disability should reframe their approach, ensuring individualized assessments and avoiding elimination of patients based on membership in a particular group.

Variation in the design of Do Not Resuscitate orders and other code status options: a multi-institutional qualitative study

BACKGROUND

US hospitals typically provide a set of code status options that includes Full Code and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) but often includes additional options. Although US hospitals differ in the design of code status options, this variation and its impacts have not been empirically studied.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Multi-institutional qualitative study at 7 US hospitals selected for variability in geographical location, type of institution and design of code status options. We triangulated across three data sources (policy documents, code status ordering menus and in-depth physician interviews) to characterise the code status options available at each hospital. Using inductive qualitative methods, we investigated design differences in hospital code status options and the perceived impacts of these differences.

RESULTS

The code status options at each hospital varied widely with regard to the number of code status options, the names and definitions of code status options, and the formatting and capabilities of code status ordering menus. DNR orders were named and defined differently at each hospital studied. We identified five key design characteristics that impact the function of a code status order. Each hospital's code status options were unique with respect to these characteristics, indicating that code status plays differing roles in each hospital. Physician participants perceived that the design of code status options shapes communication and decision-making practices about resuscitation and life-sustaining treatments, especially at the end of life. We identified four potential mechanisms through which this may occur: framing conversations, prompting decisions, shaping inferences and creating categories.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantive differences in the design of hospital code status options that may contribute to known variability in end-of-life care and treatment intensity among US hospitals. Our framework can be used to design hospital code status options or evaluate their function.

Digital Contact Tracing, Privacy, and Public Health

Digital contact tracing, in combination with widespread testing, has been a focal point for many plans to “reopen” economies while containing the spread of Covid‐19. Most digital contact tracing projects in the United States and Europe have prioritized privacy protections in the form of local storage of data on smartphones and the deidentification of information. However, in the prioritization of privacy in this narrow form, there is not sufficient attention given to weighing ethical trade‐offs within the context of a public health pandemic or to the need to evaluate safety and effectiveness of software‐based technology applied to public health.

Use of genetic risks in pediatric organ transplantation listing decisions: A national survey

There is a limited supply of organs for all those who need them for survival. Thus, careful decisions must be made about who is listed for transplant. Studies show that manifesting genetic disease can impact listing eligibility. What has not yet been studied is the impact genetic risks for future disease have on a patient's chance to be listed. Surveys were emailed to 163 pediatric liver, heart, and kidney transplant programs across the United States to elicit views and experiences of key clinicians regarding each program's use of genetic risks (ie, predispositions, positive predictive testing) in listing decisions. Response rate was 42%. Sixty-four percent of programs have required genetic testing for specific indications prior to listing decisions. Sixteen percent have required it without specific indications, suggesting that genetic testing may be used to screen candidates. Six percent have chosen not to list patients with secondary findings or family histories of genetic conditions. In hypothetical scenarios, programs consider cancer predispositions and adult-onset neurological conditions to be relative contraindications to listing (61%, 17%, and 8% depending on scenario), and some consider them absolute contraindications (5% and 3% depending on scenario). Only 3% of programs have formal policies for these scenarios, but all consult genetic specialists at least "sometimes" for results interpretation. Our study reveals that pediatric transplant programs are using future onset genetic risks in listing decisions. As genetic testing is increasingly adopted into pediatric medicine, further study is needed to prevent possible inappropriate use of genetic information from impacting listing eligibility.

Privacy and ethical challenges in next-generation sequencing

INTRODUCTION

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is expected to revolutionize health care. NGS allows for sequencing of the whole genome more cheaply and quickly than previous techniques. NGS offers opportunities to advance medical diagnostics and treatments, but also raises complicated ethical questions that need to be addressed.

AREAS CONSIDERED

This article draws from the literature on research and clinical ethics, as well as next-generation sequencing, in order to provide an overview of the ethical challenges involved in next-generation sequencing. This article includes a discussion of the ethics of NGS in research and clinical contexts.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of NGS in clinical and research contexts has features that pose challenges for traditional ethical frameworks for protecting research participants and patients. NGS generates massive amounts of data and results that vary in terms of known clinical relevance. It is important to determine appropriate processes for protecting, managing and communicating the data. The use of machine learning for sequencing and interpretation of genomic data also raises concerns in terms of the potential for bias and potential implications for fiduciary obligations. NGS poses particular challenges in three main ethical areas: privacy, informed consent, and return of results.

"I don't want to be Henrietta Lacks": diverse patient perspectives on donating biospecimens for precision medicine research

Purpose

To determine whether patients distinguish between biospecimens and electronic health records (EHRs) when considering research participation to inform research protections.

Methods

We conducted 20 focus groups with individuals who identified as African American, Hispanic, Chinese, South Asian and non-Hispanic White on the collection of biospecimens and EHR data for research.

Results

Our study found that many participants did not distinguish between biospecimens and EHR data. However, some participants identified specific concerns about biospecimens. These included the need for special care and respect for biospecimens due to enduring connections between the body and identity; the potential for unacceptable future research, specifically the prospect of human cloning; heightened privacy risks; and the potential for unjust corporate profiteering. Among those who distinguished biospecimens from EHR data, many supported separate consent processes and would limit their own participation to EHR data.

Conclusion

Considering that the potential misuse of EHR data is as great, if not greater than for biospecimens, more research is needed to understand how attitudes differ between biospecimens and EHR data across diverse populations. Such research should explore mechanisms beyond consent that can address diverse values, perspectives and misconceptions about sources of patient information to build trust in research relationships.

Ethical Challenges Confronted When Providing Nusinersen Treatment for Spinal Muscular Atrophy

The US Food and Drug Administration's December 2016 approval of nusinersen for the treatment of patients with all subtypes of spinal muscular atrophy ushered in a new era for patients with spinal muscular atrophy, their families, and all those involved in their care. The extreme cost of the medication and the complicated logistical requirements for administering nusinersen via lumbar puncture have created practical challenges that raise important ethical considerations. We discuss 6 challenges faced at the institutional level in the United States: cost, limited evidence, informed consent, treatment allocation, fair distribution of responsibilities, and transparency with stakeholders. These challenges must be understood to ensure that patients with spinal muscular atrophy benefit from treatment, are protected from harm, and are treated fairly.

Challenges to code status discussions for pediatric patients

Objectives

In the context of serious or life-limiting illness, pediatric patients and their families are faced with difficult decisions surrounding appropriate resuscitation efforts in the event of a cardiopulmonary arrest. Code status orders are one way to inform end-of-life medical decision making. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the extent to which pediatric providers have knowledge of code status options and explore the association of provider role with (1) knowledge of code status options, (2) perception of timing of code status discussions, (3) perception of family receptivity to code status discussions, and (4) comfort carrying out code status discussions.

Design

Nurses, trainees (residents and fellows), and attending physicians from pediatric units where code status discussions typically occur completed a short survey questionnaire regarding their knowledge of code status options and perceptions surrounding code status discussions.

Setting

Single center, quaternary care children’s hospital.

Measurements and main results

203 nurses, 31 trainees, and 29 attending physicians in 4 high-acuity pediatric units responded to the survey (N = 263, 90% response rate). Based on an objective knowledge measure, providers demonstrate poor understanding of available code status options, with only 22% of providers able to enumerate more than two of four available code status options. In contrast, provider groups self-report high levels of familiarity with available code status options, with attending physicians reporting significantly higher levels than nurses and trainees (p = 0.0125). Nurses and attending physicians show significantly different perception of code status discussion timing, with majority of nurses (63.4%) perceiving discussions as occurring “too late” or “much too late” and majority of attending physicians (55.6%) perceiving the timing as “about right” (p<0.0001). Attending physicians report significantly higher comfort having code status discussions with families than do nurses or trainees (p≤0.0001). Attending physicians and trainees perceive families as more receptive to code status discussions than nurses (p<0.0001 and p = 0.0018, respectively).

Conclusions

Providers have poor understanding of code status options and differ significantly in their comfort having code status discussions and their perceptions of these discussions. These findings may reflect inherent differences among providers, but may also reflect discordant visions of appropriate care and function as a potential source of moral distress. Lack of knowledge of code status options and differences in provider perceptions are likely barriers to quality communication surrounding end-of-life options.

Research on Medical Practices: Why Patients Consider Participating and the Investigational Misconception

Understanding how patients decide whether to enroll in research can help improve educational materials, protocols, and recruitment rates. However, little is known about patients' willingness to participate in research on medical practices (ROMP), or studies comparing interventions within usual care. We assessed willingness to consider participating in ROMP by surveying 1095 adults in the United States, of whom 834 answered at least one open-ended question about their reasons for being willing or unwilling to consider participating in two scenarios involving ROMP. Most respondents were willing to consider participating in the research scenarios. The most commonly cited reasons for being willing to consider participating included benefit to others and oneself; the top reasons for being unwilling to consider participating included belief that the research was unsafe and an unfavorable view of experimentation. Responses also revealed misconceptions about ROMP among both those who were willing and unwilling to consider participating. Because these misconceptions may present an obstacle to recruiting participants in ROMP, there may be a need for educational initiatives to clarify the nature of these types of studies.

Genomic Contraindications for Heart Transplantation

Genome sequencing raises new ethical challenges. Decoding the genome produces new forms of diagnostic and prognostic information; however, the information is often difficult to interpret. The connection between most genetic variants and their phenotypic manifestations is not understood. This scenario is particularly true for disorders that are not associated with an autosomal genetic variant. The analytic uncertainty is compounded by moral uncertainty about how, exactly, the results of genomic testing should influence clinical decisions. In this Ethics Rounds, we present a case in which genomic findings seemed to play a role in deciding whether a patient was to be listed as a transplant candidate. We then asked experts in bioethics and cardiology to discuss the implications of such decisions.

A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: Implications for informed consent

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Participant understanding is a key element of informed consent for enrollment in research. However, participants often do not understand the nature, risks, benefits, or design of the studies in which they take part. Research on medical practices, which studies standard interventions rather than new treatments, has the potential to be especially confusing to participants because it is embedded within usual clinical care. Our objective in this randomized study was to compare the ability of a range of multimedia informational aids to improve participant understanding in the context of research on medical practices.

METHODS

We administered a web-based survey to members of a proprietary online panel sample selected to match national US demographics. Respondents were randomized to one of five arms: four content-equivalent informational aids (animated videos, slideshows with voice-over, comics, and text) and one no-intervention control. We measured knowledge of research on medical practices using a summary knowledge score from 10 questions based on the content of the informational aids. We used analysis of variance and paired t-tests to compare knowledge scores between arms.

RESULTS

There were 1500 completed surveys (300 in each arm). Mean knowledge scores were highest for the slideshows with voice-over (65.7%), followed by the animated videos (62.7%), comics (60.7%), text (57.2%), and control (50.3%). Differences between arms were statistically significant except between the slideshows with voice-over and animated videos and between the animated videos and comics. Informational aids that included an audio component (animated videos and slideshows with voice-over) had higher knowledge scores than those without an audio component (64.2% vs 59.0%, p < .0001). There was no difference between informational aids with a character-driven story component (animated videos and comics) and those without.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that simple multimedia aids that use a dual-channel approach, such as voice-over with visual reinforcement, can improve participant knowledge more effectively than text alone. However, the relatively low knowledge scores suggest that targeted informational aids may be needed to teach some particularly challenging concepts. Nonetheless, our results demonstrate the potential to improve informed consent for research on medical practices using multimedia aids that include simplified language and visual metaphors.

Can Destination Therapy be implemented in children with heart failure? A study of provider perceptions

DT is an established final therapeutic choice in adult patients with severe heart failure who do not meet criteria for cardiac transplantation. Patients are given VADs, without the prospect of care escalation to transplantation. VADs are now established therapy for children and are currently used as a bridge until transplantation can be performed or heart failure improves. For children who present in severe heart failure but do not meet transplantation criteria, the question has emerged whether DT can be offered. This qualitative study aimed to elicit the perspectives of early adopters of DT at one of the few institutions where DT has been provided for children. Responses were recorded and coded and themes extracted using grounded theory. Interviewees discussed: envisioning of the DT candidate; approach to evaluation for DT; contraindications to choosing DT; and concerns about choosing DT. Providers articulated two frameworks for conceptualizing DT: as a long bridge through resolution of problems that would initially contraindicate transplantation or, alternatively, as a true destination instead of transplantation. True destination, however, may not be the lasting concept for long-term VAD use in children given improvement in prognosis for current medical contraindications and improving VAD technology.

Randomized n-of-1 Trials: Quality Improvement, Research, or Both?

The regulatory demarcations between clinical research and quality improvement (QI) are ambiguous and controversial. Some projects that were undertaken as a form of QI were deemed by regulatory agencies to be research and thus to require institutional review board approval. In the era of personalized medicine, some physicians may ask some patients to participate in n-of-1 trials in an effort to personalize and optimize each patient's medical treatment. Should such activities be considered research, QI, or just excellent personalized medicine? Experts in research, research regulation, and bioethics analyze these issues.

A comparison of institutional review board professionals' and patients' views on consent for research on medical practices

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In the context of research on medical practices, which includes comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials, empirical studies have begun to raise questions about the extent to which institutional review boards' interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients' values. To better understand the similarities and differences between these stakeholder groups, we compare and contrast two surveys: one of institutional review board professionals and one of patients, which examine views on consent for research on medical practices.

METHODS

We conducted online surveys of two target populations between July 2014 and March 2015. We surveyed 601 human subjects research professionals out of 1500 randomly selected from the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research membership list (40.1% response rate), limiting analysis to 537 respondents who reported having had institutional review board experience. We also surveyed 120 adult patients out of 225 approached at subspecialty clinics in Spokane, Washington (53.3% response rate). Our survey questions probed attitudes about consent in the context of research on medical practices using medical record review and randomization. The patient survey included three embedded animated videos to explain these concepts.

RESULTS

A majority of institutional review board professionals distinguished between consent preferences for medical record review and randomization, ranked clinicians as the least preferred person to obtain participant consent (54.6%), and viewed written or verbal permission as the minimum acceptable consent approach for research on medical practices using randomization (87.3%). In contrast, most patients had similar consent preferences for research on medical practices using randomization and medical record review, most preferred to have consent conversations with their doctors rather than with researchers for studies using randomization (72.6%) and medical record review (67.0%), and only a few preferred to see research involving randomization (16.8%) or medical record review (13.8%) not take place if obtaining written or verbal permission would make the research too difficult to conduct. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include differences in framing, structure, and language between the two surveys and possible response bias.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight a need to identify appropriate ways to integrate patient preferences into prevailing regulatory interpretations as institutional review boards increasingly apply research regulations in the context of research on medical practices. Dialogue between institutional review boards and research participants will be an important part of this process and should inform future regulatory guidance.

Compassionate deactivation of ventricular assist devices in pediatric patients

Despite greatly improved survival in pediatric patients with end-stage heart failure through the use of ventricular assist devices (VADs), heart failure ultimately remains a life-threatening disease with a significant symptom burden. With increased demand for donor organs, liberalizing the boundaries of case complexity, and the introduction of destination therapy in children, more children can be expected to die while on mechanical support. Despite this trend, guidelines on the ethical and pragmatic issues of compassionate deactivation of VAD support in children are strikingly absent. As VAD support for pediatric patients increases in frequency, the pediatric heart failure and palliative care communities must work toward establishing guidelines to clarify the complex issues surrounding compassionate deactivation. Patient, family and clinician attitudes must be ascertained and education regarding the psychological, legal and ethical issues should be provided. Furthermore, pediatric-specific planning documents for use before VAD implantation as well as deactivation checklists should be developed to assist with decision-making at critical points during the illness trajectory. Herein we review the relevant literature regarding compassionate deactivation with a specific focus on issues related to children.

Adrift in the Gray Zone: IRB Perspectives on Research in the Learning Health System

BACKGROUND

Human subjects protection in healthcare contexts rests on the premise that a principled boundary distinguishes clinical research and clinical practice. However, growing use of evidence-based clinical practices by health systems makes it increasingly difficult to disentangle research from a wide range of clinical activities that are sometimes called "research on medical practice" (ROMP), including quality improvement activities and comparative effectiveness research. The recent growth of ROMP activities has created an ethical and regulatory gray zone with significant implications for the oversight of human subjects research.

METHODS

We conducted six semi-structured, open-ended focus group discussions with IRB members to understand their experiences and perspectives on ethical oversight of ROMP, including randomization of patients to standard treatments.

RESULTS

Our study revealed that IRB members are unclear or divided on the central questions at stake in the current policy debate over ethical oversight of ROMP: IRB members struggle to make a clear distinction between clinical research and medical practice improvement, lack consensus on when ROMP requires IRB review and oversight, and are uncertain about what constitutes incremental risk when patients are randomized to different treatments, any of which may be offered in usual care. They characterized the central challenge as a balancing act, between, on the one hand, making information fully transparent to patients and providing adequate oversight, and on the other hand, avoiding a chilling effect on the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based guidance that supports IRB members in providing adequate and effective oversight of ROMP without impeding the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship is necessary to realize the full benefits of the learning health system.