Evaluation of a medical ethics consultation service: opinions of patients and health care providers.

PURPOSE: To study the perceived effectiveness of bioethics consultation as evaluated by both professional staff and patients and their families. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An evaluation questionnaire was forwarded to physicians, nurses and patients or family members who were associated with 20 sequential cases referred for ethics consultation during a 2-year period. Respondents were asked to rate the consult as very helpful, somewhat helpful, or not helpful concerning a variety of issues related to the care of the patients. Responses were reviewed for agreement or disagreement between the three sample groups. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of physicians and 95% of nurses sampled felt that the consult was helpful, compared with only 65% of the patient/family responses. Lack of communication between patients and staff was cited as a problem in all cases in which the consult was deemed unhelpful by patients and family. CONCLUSIONS: Patients or family members and professional staff have different perceptions regarding the value of bioethics consultation. When asked for comments, patients/family members cite lack of communication with professional staff as their primary reason for responding negatively. Earlier mobilization of consultative staff, rigorous training of consultants in techniques of conflict resolution, and education of primary caregivers regarding recognition of communication problems may serve to narrow this perceptual divergence.

Metoprolol versus thiazide diuretics in hypertension. Morbidity results from the MAPHY Study.

The present study in hypertensive men (40-64 years old) with untreated diastolic blood pressure above 100 mm Hg was aimed at investigating whether metoprolol (n = 1,609) given as initial treatment would lower the risk for coronary events (sudden death and myocardial infarction) more effectively than thiazide diuretics (n = 1,625). A substantial part of this study was the metoprolol arm of the Heart Attack Primary Prevention in Hypertension (HAPPHY) study. The HAPPHY study was a pooling of the effect of different beta-blockers, mainly metoprolol and atenolol, in which no favorable effect in relative risk was observed for atenolol as compared with diuretics. In the present study, 255 patients suffered definite coronary events during follow-up; 25% of these events were fatal, 39% were acute myocardial infarctions, and 36% were silent myocardial infarctions. The risk for coronary events was significantly lower in patients on metoprolol than in patients on diuretics (111 versus 144 cases, p = 0.001, corresponding to 14.3 versus 18.8 cases/1,000 patient years and a relative risk of 0.76 at the end of the trial; 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.98). This difference in risk has potentially important implications for clinical practice because of the large number of hypertensive patients who are at increased risk for coronary events. Because a placebo group, for ethical reasons, could not be included, relative risk can only be expressed in relation to diuretics. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in baseline characteristics, blood pressure during follow-up, or stroke rates. Thus, the difference in risk for coronary events is probably mediated via mechanisms other than blood pressure control. However, present data might suggest that different beta-blockers may have different efficacy in preventing coronary events. The reasons for this possibility are as yet unknown.