Equivalence of care, confidentiality, and professional independence must underpin the hospital care of individuals experiencing incarceration.

We present the reflections of three clinical practitioners on ethical considerations when caring for individuals experiencing incarceration needing in-patient hospital services. We examine the challenges and critical importance of adhering to core principles of medical ethics in such settings. These principles encompass access to a physician, equivalence of care, patient's consent and confidentiality, preventive healthcare, humanitarian assistance, professional independence, and professional competence. We strongly believe that detained persons have a right to access healthcare services that are equivalent to those available in the general population, including in-patient services. All the other established standards to uphold the health and dignity of people experiencing incarceration should also apply to in-patient care, whether this takes place outside or inside the prison boundaries. Our reflection focuses on the principles of confidentiality, professional independence, and equivalence of care. We argue that the respect for these three principles, although they present specific implementation challenges, is foundational for implementing the other principles. Critically important are respect for the distinct roles and responsibilities of healthcare and security staff as well as transparent and non-hierarchical dialogue between them to ensure optimal health outcomes and functioning of hospital wards while balancing the ongoing tensions between care and control.

Comparison of continuous and intermittent renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates of critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) are high. Intermittent and continuous RRT are available for these patients on the intensive care units (ICUs). It is unknown which technique is superior with respect to patient outcome. METHODS: We randomized 125 patients to treatment with either continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or intermittent haemodialysis (IHD) from a total of 191 patients with ARF in a tertiary-care university hospital ICU. The primary end-point was ICU and in-hospital mortality, while recovery of renal function and hospital length of stay were secondary end-points. RESULTS: During 30 months, no patient escaped randomization for medical reasons. Sixty-six patients were not randomized for non-medical reasons. Of the 125 randomized patients, 70 were treated with CVVHDF and 55 with IHD. The two groups were comparable at the start of RRT with respect to age (62+/-15 vs 62+/-15 years, CVVHDF vs IHD), gender (66 vs 73% male sex), number of failed organ systems (2.4+/-1.5 vs 2.5+/-1.6), Simplified Acute Physiology Scores (57+/-17 vs 58+/-23), septicaemia (43 vs 51%), shock (59 vs 58%) or previous surgery (53 vs 45%). Mortality rates in the hospital (47 vs 51%, CVVHDF vs IHD, P = 0.72) or in the ICU (34 vs 38%, P = 0.71) were independent of the technique of RRT applied. Hospital length of stay in the survivors was comparable in patients on CVVHDF [median (range) 20 (6-71) days, n = 36] and in those on IHD [30 (2-89) days, n = 27, P = 0.25]. The duration of RRT required was the same in both groups. CONCLUSION: The present investigation provides no evidence for a survival benefit of continuous vs intermittent RRT in ICU patients with ARF.