An Ethics Early Action Protocol to Promote Teamwork and Ethics Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Moral dilemmas and ethical conflicts occur in critical care. Negative consequences include misunderstandings, mistrust, patient and family suffering, clinician moral distress, and patient safety concerns. Providing an opportunity for team-based ethics assessments and planning could improve communication and reduce moral distress. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to explore whether an early action ethics intervention affects intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians' moral distress, ethics self-efficacy, and perceptions of hospital climate and to compare nurses' and physicians' scores on moral distress, ethics self-efficacy, and ethical climate at 3 time points. METHODS: Intensive care unit nurses and physicians were asked to complete surveys on moral distress, ethics self-efficacy, and ethical climate before implementing the ethics protocol in 6 ICUs. We measured responses to the same 3 surveys at 3 and 6 months after the protocol was used. RESULTS: At baseline, nurses scored significantly higher than physicians in moral distress and significantly lower in ethics self-efficacy. Plot graphs revealed that nurses' and physicians' outcome scores trended toward one another. At 3 and 6 months post intervention, nurse and physician scores changed differently in moral distress and ethics self-efficacy. When examining nurse and physician scores separately over time, we found nurses' scores in moral distress and moral distress frequency decreased significantly over time and ethics self-efficacy and ethics climate increased significantly over time. Physicians' scores did not change significantly. DISCUSSION: This study indicates that routine, team-based ethics assessment and planning opens a space for sharing information, which could decrease nurses' moral distress and increase their ethics self-efficacy. This, in turn, can potentially promote teamwork and reduce burnout.

The Community Perspective on Potentially Inappropriate Treatment.

Rationale: Medical interventions that prolong life without achieving an effect that the patient can appreciate as a benefit are often considered futile or inappropriate by healthcare providers. In recent years, a multicenter guideline has been released with recommendations on how to resolve conflicts between families and clinicians in these situations and to increase public engagement. Although laypeople are acknowledged as important stakeholders, their perceptions and understanding of the terms "potentially inappropriate" or "futile" treatment have received little formal evaluation.Objectives: To evaluate the community perspective about the meaning of futile treatment.Methods: Six focus groups (two groups each of ages <65, 65-75, and >75 yr) were convened to explore what constitutes futile treatment and who should decide in situations of conflict between doctors and families. Focus group discussions were analyzed using grounded theory.Results: There were 39 participants aged 18 or older with at least one previous hospitalization (personal or by immediate relative). When asked to describe futile or inappropriate treatment, community members found the concept difficult to understand and the terminology inadequate, though when presented with a case describing inappropriate treatment, most participants recognized it as the provision of inappropriate treatment. Several themes emerged regarding participant difficulty with the concept, including inadequate physician-patient communication, lack of public emphasis on end-of-life issues, skepticism that medical treatment can be completely inappropriate, and doubts and fears that medical futility could undermine patient and/or family autonomy. Participants also firmly believed that in situations of conflict families should be the ultimate decision-makers.Conclusions: Public engagement in policy development and discourse around medical futility will first require intense education to familiarize the lay public about use of inappropriate treatment at the end of life.

A Team-Based Early Action Protocol to Address Ethical Concerns in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Ethical conflicts complicate clinical practice and often compromise communication and teamwork among patients, families, and clinicians. As ethical conflicts escalate, patient and family distress and dissatisfaction with care increase and trust in clinicians erodes, reducing care quality and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a proactive, team-based ethics protocol used routinely to discuss ethics-related concerns, goals of care, and additional supports for patients and families. METHODS: In a pre-post intervention study in 6 intensive care units (ICUs) at 3 academic medical centers, the electronic medical records of 1649 patients representing 1712 ICU admissions were studied. Number and timing of family conferences, code discussions with the patient or surrogate, and ethics consultations; palliative care, social work, and chaplain referrals; and ICU length of stay were measured. Preintervention outcomes were compared with outcomes 3 and 6 months after the intervention via multivariate logistic regression controlled for patient variables. RESULTS: The odds of receiving a family conference and a chaplain visit were significantly higher after the intervention than at baseline. The number of palliative care consultations and code discussions increased slightly at 3 and 6 months. Social work consultations increased only at 6 months. Ethics consultations increased at both postintervention time points. Length of ICU stay did not change. CONCLUSIONS: When health care teams were encouraged to communicate routinely about goals of care, more patients received needed support and communication barriers were reduced.

A National Survey on Moral Obligations in Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: Critical care clinicians routinely encounter ethically complex situations. Ethical conflicts sometimes arise from different perspectives regarding goals of care and moral obligations. These conflicts contribute to providers' moral distress and burnout and can erode trust between patients, families, and clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To explore the most disturbing and most frequent types of ethically complex situations; compare clinicians' perceptions of their own, each other's, and shared moral obligations for providing quality care in these situations; and examine perceptions of communication and teamwork. METHODS: A national, web-based survey was made available to members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses and the Society for Critical Care Medicine. The survey included rank order, rating, and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Nurses and physicians ranked similarly the most frequent and disturbing ethical situations encountered during critical care practice. Nurses and physicians rated similarly physicians' moral obligations, but their ratings of nurses' moral obligations differed, with physicians giving lower ratings. Physicians also were more likely than nurses to report higher levels of trust (90.6% vs 66.8%) and more satisfaction with team communication (81.3% vs 66.9%). Narrative comments revealed embedded, entwined, and sometimes divergent expectations about moral obligations, which interfered with effective teamwork during ethically complex situations. CONCLUSIONS: Teamwork in critical care would benefit from acknowledgment of and clear communication about role-specific, interdependent, and shared moral obligations. Opportunities for routine, team-based dialogue about ethical aspects of care and moral obligations could reduce role ambiguity and ethical conflicts.

Understanding the Workplace Interactions of Young Adult Cancer Survivors With Occupational and Environmental Health Professionals.

Work provides satisfaction and stability to young adult cancer survivors. However, progressive health changes because of cancer may compromise safety and diminish functional ability. The purpose of this study was to describe long-term young adult cancer survivors' work experiences and describe their interactions with occupational and environmental health professionals (OEHPs) within the workplace. Cancer survivors were recruited from the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program. Professional organizations provided access to OEHPs. Constructivist grounded theory guided individual semi-structured interviews during data collection and analysis. Processes of interaction between cancer survivors and OEHPs found to influence work included revealing the survivor-self, sustaining work ability, gatekeeping (employment opportunities, return to work), and accessing support. OEHPs appeared to facilitate survivors' work ability in the long term if services were available, services were known to survivors, and survivors revealed needs. Educating workers about OEHP services throughout cancer experiences and survivorship could ultimately improve interactivity and provide supportive work environments.

Screening situations for risk of ethical conflicts: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Ethical conflicts, often leading to poor teamwork and moral distress, are very challenging to patients, patients' families, and health care providers. A proactive approach to ethical conflicts may improve patient care outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To examine acceptability and feasibility of an ethics screening and early intervention tool for use by nurses caring for critically ill patients. METHODS: Twenty-eight nurses in 2 medical centers applied the ethics screening tool to 55 patient situations. Nurses assessed situations for risk factors and early indicators of ethical conflicts and analyzed level of risk. At study completion, nurses participated in focus group discussions about the tool's benefits and challenges. Frequency counts were performed on risk factors and early indicators of ethical conflicts. Content analysis was used on written explanations regarding high-, medium-, and low-risk situations and on focus group data. RESULTS: Older patients with multiple comorbid conditions and aggressive treatments were frequently assessed to be at risk for ethical conflicts. Nurses who witnessed patients' suffering and deterioration were likely to initiate the screening process. The most prominent family risk factors included unrealistic expectations and adamancy about treatment. The most prominent early indicators were signs of patients' suffering, unrealistic expectations, and providers' own moral distress. High-risk situations averaged a greater number of risk factors and early indicators than did medium- and low-risk situations. Certain risk factors featured prominently in high-risk situations. CONCLUSIONS: A phenomenon of shared suffering emerged from the study and signifies the importance of relational strategies such as routine family conferences and ethics consultation.

Barriers to innovation: nurses' risk appraisal in using a new ethics screening and early intervention tool.

We developed and assessed feasibility of an Ethics Screening and Early Intervention Tool that identifies at-risk clinical situations and prompts early actions to mitigate conflict and moral distress. Despite intensive care unit and oncology nurses' reports of tool benefits, they noted some risk to themselves when initiating follow-up actions. The riskiest actions were discussing ethical concerns with physicians, calling for ethics consultation, and initiating patient conversations. When discussing why initiating action was risky, participants revealed themes such as "being the troublemaker" and "questioning myself." To improve patient care and teamwork, all members of the health care team need to feel safe in raising ethics-related questions.