"It Kills Your Soul": A Mixed Methods Study of Ethical Sensitivity of Critical Care Nurses.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients often experience distressful and impactful symptoms and conditions that include pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disturbances (PADIS). The presence of PADIS can affect recovery and long-term patient outcomes. An integral part of critical care nursing is PADIS prevention, assessment, and management. Ethical sensitivity of everyday nursing practice related to PADIS is an imperative part of implementing evidence-based care for patients. OBJECTIVE: The first 2 aims of this study were to determine the measured level of ethical awareness as an attribute of ethical sensitivity among the critical care nurse participants and to explore the ethical sensitivity of critical care nurses related to the implementation of PADIS care. The third aim was to examine how the measured level of ethical awareness and ethical sensitivity exploration results converge, diverge, and/or relate to each other to produce a more complete understanding of PADIS ethical sensitivity by critical care nurses. METHODS: This was a convergent parallel mixed methods study (QUAL + quant). Ethical sensitivity was explored by conducting an ethnography of critical care nurses. The participants were 19 critical care nurses who were observed during patient care, interviewed individually, participated in a focus group (QUAL), and were administered the Ethical Awareness Scale (quant). FINDINGS: Despite high levels of individual ethical awareness among nurses, themes of ambiguous beneficence, heedless autonomy, and moral distress were found to be related to PADIS care. CONCLUSIONS: More effort is needed to establish moral community, ethical leadership, and individual ethical guidance for nurses to establish patient-centered decision-making and PADIS care.

Encuesta nacional sobre cambios en las políticas de comunicación, visitas y cuidados al final de la vida en las unidades de cuidados intensivos durante las diferentes olas de la pandemia de COVID-19 (estudio COVIFAUCI) / National survey on changes in visitation, communication and end-of-life care policies in intensive care units through the different COVID-19 pandemic's waves (COVIFAUCI study)

Introducción La pandemia derivada de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 propició cambios en los cuidados tanto a familiares como a pacientes de cuidados intensivos durante las diferentes olas de incidencia del virus. La línea de humanización seguida por la mayoría de los hospitales se vio gravemente afectada por las restricciones aplicadas. Como objetivo, planteamos conocer las modificaciones experimentadas durante las diferentes olas de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 en España respecto a la política de visitas a los pacientes en UCI, el acompañamiento al final de la vida, y el uso de las nuevas tecnologías de la comunicación entre familiares, pacientes y profesionales. Métodos Estudio descriptivo transversal multicéntrico mediante encuesta a las UCI españolas desde febrero a abril de 2022. Se realizaron métodos de análisis estadísticos a los resultados según lo apropiado. El estudio fue avalado por la Sociedad Española de Enfermería Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias. Resultados Respondieron un 29% de las unidades contactadas. Los minutos de visita diarios de los familiares se redujeron drásticamente de 135 (87,5-255) a 45 (25-60) en el 21,2% de las unidades que permitían su acceso, mejorando levemente con el paso de las olas. En el caso de duelo, la permisividad fue mayor, aumentando el uso de las nuevas tecnologías para la comunicación paciente-familia en el caso del 96,5% de las unidades. Conclusiones Las familias de los pacientes ingresados en UCI durante las diferentes olas de la pandemia por COVID-19 han experimentado restricciones en las visitas y cambio de la presencialidad por técnicas virtuales de comunicación. Los tiempos de acceso se redujeron a niveles mínimos durante la primera ola, recuperándose con el avance de la pandemia pero sin llegar nunca a los niveles iniciales... (AU)

Introduction The pandemic derived from the SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in care for both relatives and intensive care patients during the different waves of incidence of the virus. The line of humanization followed by the majority of the hospitals was seriously affected by the restrictions applied. As an objective, we propose to know the modifications suffered during the different waves of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Spain regarding the policy of visits to patients in the ICU, monitoring at the end of life, and the use of new technologies of communication between family members, patients and professionals. Methods Multicenter cross-sectional descriptive study through a survey of Spanish ICUs from February to April 2022. Statistical analysis methods were performed on the results as appropriate. The study was endorsed by the Spanish Society of Intensive Nursing and Coronary Units. Results Twenty-nine percent of the units contacted responded. The daily visiting minutes of relatives dropped drastically from 135 (87.5-255) to 45 (25-60) in the 21.2% of units that allowed their access, improving slightly with the passing of the waves. In the case of bereavement, the permissiveness was greater, increasing the use of new technologies for patient-family communication in the case of 96.5% of the units. Conclusions The family of patients admitted to the ICU during the different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic have suffered restrictions on visits and a change from face-to-face to virtual communication techniques. Access times were reduced to minimum levels during the first wave, recovering with the advance of the pandemic but never reaching initial levels. Despite the implemented solutions and virtual communication, efforts should be directed towards improving the protocols for the humanization of healthcare that allow caring for families and patients whatever the healthcare context. (AU)

Encuesta nacional sobre cambios en las políticas de comunicación, visitas y cuidados al final de la vida en las unidades de cuidados intensivos durante las diferentes olas de la pandemia de COVID-19 (estudio COVIFAUCI) / National survey on changes in visitation, communication and end-of-life care policies in intensive care units through the different COVID-19 pandemic's waves (COVIFAUCI study)

Introducción La pandemia derivada de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 propició cambios en los cuidados tanto a familiares como a pacientes de cuidados intensivos durante las diferentes olas de incidencia del virus. La línea de humanización seguida por la mayoría de los hospitales se vio gravemente afectada por las restricciones aplicadas. Como objetivo, planteamos conocer las modificaciones experimentadas durante las diferentes olas de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 en España respecto a la política de visitas a los pacientes en UCI, el acompañamiento al final de la vida, y el uso de las nuevas tecnologías de la comunicación entre familiares, pacientes y profesionales. Métodos Estudio descriptivo transversal multicéntrico mediante encuesta a las UCI españolas desde febrero a abril de 2022. Se realizaron métodos de análisis estadísticos a los resultados según lo apropiado. El estudio fue avalado por la Sociedad Española de Enfermería Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias. Resultados Respondieron un 29% de las unidades contactadas. Los minutos de visita diarios de los familiares se redujeron drásticamente de 135 (87,5-255) a 45 (25-60) en el 21,2% de las unidades que permitían su acceso, mejorando levemente con el paso de las olas. En el caso de duelo, la permisividad fue mayor, aumentando el uso de las nuevas tecnologías para la comunicación paciente-familia en el caso del 96,5% de las unidades. Conclusiones Las familias de los pacientes ingresados en UCI durante las diferentes olas de la pandemia por COVID-19 han experimentado restricciones en las visitas y cambio de la presencialidad por técnicas virtuales de comunicación. Los tiempos de acceso se redujeron a niveles mínimos durante la primera ola, recuperándose con el avance de la pandemia pero sin llegar nunca a los niveles iniciales... (AU)

Introduction The pandemic derived from the SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in care for both relatives and intensive care patients during the different waves of incidence of the virus. The line of humanization followed by the majority of the hospitals was seriously affected by the restrictions applied. As an objective, we propose to know the modifications suffered during the different waves of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Spain regarding the policy of visits to patients in the ICU, monitoring at the end of life, and the use of new technologies of communication between family members, patients and professionals. Methods Multicenter cross-sectional descriptive study through a survey of Spanish ICUs from February to April 2022. Statistical analysis methods were performed on the results as appropriate. The study was endorsed by the Spanish Society of Intensive Nursing and Coronary Units. Results Twenty-nine percent of the units contacted responded. The daily visiting minutes of relatives dropped drastically from 135 (87.5-255) to 45 (25-60) in the 21.2% of units that allowed their access, improving slightly with the passing of the waves. In the case of bereavement, the permissiveness was greater, increasing the use of new technologies for patient-family communication in the case of 96.5% of the units. Conclusions The family of patients admitted to the ICU during the different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic have suffered restrictions on visits and a change from face-to-face to virtual communication techniques. Access times were reduced to minimum levels during the first wave, recovering with the advance of the pandemic but never reaching initial levels. Despite the implemented solutions and virtual communication, efforts should be directed towards improving the protocols for the humanization of healthcare that allow caring for families and patients whatever the healthcare context. (AU)

[Time-limited trials (TLT) in the intensive care unit : Recommendations from the ethics section of the DIVI and the ethics section of the DGIIN]. / Zeitlich begrenzter Therapieversuch ("time-limited trial", TLT) auf der Intensivstation : Handlungsempfehlung der Sektion Ethik der DIVI und der Sektion Ethik der DGIIN.

The rise in intensive care treatment procedures is accompanied by an increase in the complexity of decisions regarding the selection, administration and duration of treatment measures. Whether a treatment goal is desirable in an individual case and the treatment plan required to achieve it is acceptable for the patient depends on the patient's preferences, values and life plans. There is often uncertainty as to whether a patient-centered treatment goal can be achieved. The use of a time-limited treatment trial (TLT) as a binding agreement between the intensive care unit (ICU) team and the patient or their legal representative on a treatment concept over a defined period of time in the ICU can be helpful to reduce uncertainties and to ensure the continuation of intensive care measures in the patients' best interest.

Rationing With Respect to Age During a Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis of State Pandemic Preparedness Plans.

BACKGROUND: Faced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration. RESULTS: Thirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy. INTERPRETATION: Guidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.

Establishing a South African national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical operations have been drastically reduced in South Africa (SA). Guidelines on surgical prioritisation during COVID-19 have been published, but are specific to high-income countries. There is a pressing need for context-specific guidelines and a validated tool for prioritising surgical cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the South African National Surgical Obstetric Anaesthesia Plan Task Team was asked by the National Department of Health to establish a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation. OBJECTIVES: To develop a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation, including a set of recommendations and a risk calculatorfor operative care. METHODS: The surgical prioritisation framework was developed in three stages: (i) a literature review of international, national and local recommendations on COVID-19 and surgical care was conducted; (ii) a set of recommendations was drawn up based on the available literature and through consensus of the COVID-19 Task Team; and (iii) a COVID-19 surgical risk calculator was developed and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 30 documents were identified from which recommendations around prioritisation of surgical care were used to draw up six recommendations for preoperative COVID-19 screening and testing as well as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. Ninety-nine perioperative practitioners from eight SA provinces evaluated the COVID-19 surgical risk calculator, which had high acceptability and a high level of concordance (81%) with current clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This national framework on COVID-19 surgical prioritisation can help hospital teams make ethical, equitable and personalised decisions whether to proceed with or delay surgical operations during this unprecedented epidemic.

Protocol to assess performance of crisis standards of care guidelines for clinical triage.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states developed Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) algorithms to triage allocation of scarce resources to maximize population-wide benefit. While CSC algorithms were developed by ethical debate, this protocol guides their quantitative assessment. For CSC algorithms, this protocol addresses (1) adapting algorithms for empirical study, (2) quantifying predictive accuracy, and (3) simulating clinical decision-making. This protocol provides a framework for healthcare systems and governments to test the performance of CSC algorithms to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Jezmir et al. (2021).

Resuscitation à la Carte: Ethical Concerns About the Practice and Theory of Partial Codes.

We describe a request for CPR without chest compressions from a patient's daughter. Requests for partial codes raise numerous clinical concerns, including lack of evidence-based effectiveness, risk of medical error, and difficulty in communication. These in turn lead to ethical concerns, including a misapplication of respect for patient autonomy, violating the foundational principle of "first do no harm," and inconsistency with the tenets of shared decision-making. Many requests for partial codes are also based on a conflation of cardiopulmonary arrest and pre-arrest emergencies. We argue physicians have no ethical obligation to honor a request for a partial code and that doing so does not violate respect for patient autonomy. Requests for partial codes should be seen as a request for information about CPR and an invitation to conversation. We also report here the move our health system made to only offer evidence-based code status options and reject those with negligible likelihood for therapeutic benefit. This work included limiting options for code status to "Full Code" or "Do Not Attempt Resuscitation," creating an order set for non-arrest emergencies, and sample language to guide physicians in responding to requests for partial codes. To assist other hospitals or health systems considering this move, we provide the content of the order set for non-arrest emergencies and the sample language guide.

Ethics of ICU triage during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has placed intensive care units (ICU) triage at the center of bioethical discussions. National and international triage guidelines emerged from professional and governmental bodies and have led to controversial discussions about which criteria-e.g. medical prognosis, age, life-expectancy or quality of life-are ethically acceptable. The paper presents the main points of agreement and disagreement in triage protocols and reviews the ethical debate surrounding them. SOURCES OF DATA: Published articles, news articles, book chapters, ICU triage guidelines set out by professional societies and health authorities. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Points of agreement in the guidelines that are widely supported by ethical arguments are (i) to avoid using a first come, first served policy or quality-adjusted life-years and (ii) to rely on medical prognosis, maximizing lives saved, justice as fairness and non-discrimination. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Points of disagreement in existing guidelines and the ethics literature more broadly regard the use of exclusion criteria, the role of life expectancy, the prioritization of healthcare workers and the reassessment of triage decisions. GROWING POINTS: Improve outcome predictions, possibly aided by Artificial intelligence (AI); develop participatory approaches to drafting, assessing and revising triaging protocols; learn from experiences with implementation of guidelines with a view to continuously improve decision-making. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Examine the universality vs. context-dependence of triaging principles and criteria; empirically test the appropriateness of triaging guidelines, including impact on vulnerable groups and risk of discrimination; study the potential and challenges of AI for outcome and preference prediction and decision-support.

COVID-19 Pandemic Healthcare Resource Allocation, Age and Frailty.

The current coronavirus pandemic presents the greatest healthcare crisis in living memory. Hospitals across the world have faced unprecedented pressure. In the face of this tidal wave of demand for limited healthcare resources, how are clinicians to identify patients most likely to benefit? Should age or frailty be discriminators? This paper seeks to analyse the current evidence-base, seeking a nuanced approach to pandemic decision-making, such as admission to critical care.

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

BACKGROUND: Prognostic uncertainty is a challenge for physicians in the neuro intensive care field. Questions about whether continued life-sustaining treatment is in a patient's best interests arise in different phases after a severe traumatic brain injury. In-depth information about how physicians deal with ethical issues in different contexts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to seek insight into clinicians' strategies concerning unresolved prognostic uncertainty and their ethical reasoning on the issue of limitation of life-sustaining treatment in patients with minimal or no signs of neurological improvement after severe traumatic brain injury in the later trauma hospital phase. METHODS: Interviews with 18 physicians working in a neurointensive care unit in a large Norwegian trauma hospital, followed by a qualitative thematic analysis focused on physicians' strategies related to treatment-limiting decision-making. RESULTS: A divide between proactive and wait-and-see strategies emerged. Notwithstanding the hospital's strong team culture, inter-physician variability with regard to ethical reasoning and preferred strategies was exposed. All the physicians emphasized the importance of team-family interactions. Nevertheless, their strategies differed: (1) The proactive physicians were open to consider limitations of life-sustaining treatment when the prognosis was grim. They initiated ethical discussions, took leadership in clarification and deliberation processes regarding goals and options, saw themselves as guides for the families and believed in the necessity to prepare families for both best-case and worst-case scenarios. (2) The "wait-and-see" physicians preferred open-ended treatment (no limitations). Neurologically injured patients need time to uncover their true recovery potential, they argued. They often avoided talking to the family about dying or other worst-case scenarios during this phase. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the individual physician in charge, ethical issues may rest unresolved or not addressed in the later trauma hospital phase. Nevertheless, team collaboration serves to mitigate inter-physician variability. There are problems and pitfalls to be aware of related to both proactive and wait-and-see approaches. The timing of best-interest discussions and treatment-limiting decisions remain challenging after severe traumatic brain injury. Routines for timely and open discussions with families about the range of ethically reasonable options need to be strengthened.

Preferences and values for rapid genomic testing in critically ill infants and children: a discrete choice experiment.

Healthcare systems are increasingly considering widespread implementation of rapid genomic testing of critically ill children, but evidence on the value of the benefits generated is lacking. This information is key for an optimal implementation into healthcare systems. A discrete choice experiment survey was designed to elicit preferences and values for rapid genomic testing in critically ill children. The survey was administered to members of the Australian public and families with lived experience of rapid genomic testing. A Bayesian D-efficient explicit partial profiles design was used, and data were analysed using a panel error component mixed logit model. Preference heterogeneity was explored using a latent class model and fractional logistic regressions. The public (n = 522) and families with lived experiences (n = 25) demonstrated strong preferences for higher diagnostic yield and clinical utility, faster result turnaround times, and lower cost. Society on average would be willing to pay an additional AU$9510 (US$6657) for rapid (2 weeks results turnaround time) and AU$11,000 (US$7700) for ultra-rapid genomic testing (2 days turnaround time) relative to standard diagnostic care. Corresponding estimates among those with lived experiences were AU$10,225 (US$7158) and AU$11,500 (US$8050), respectively. Our work provides further evidence that rapid genomic testing for critically ill children with rare conditions generates substantial utility. The findings can be used to inform cost-benefit analyses as part of broader healthcare system implementation.

Prioritising 'already-scarce' intensive care unit resources in the midst of COVID-19: a call for regional triage committees in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: The worsening COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa poses multiple challenges for clinical decision making in the context of already-scarce ICU resources. Data from national government and the last published national audit of ICU resources indicate gross shortages. While the Critical Care Society of Southern Africa (CCSSA) guidelines provide a comprehensive guideline for triage in the face of overwhelmed ICU resources, such decisions present massive ethical and moral dilemmas for triage teams. It is therefore important for the health system to provide clinicians and critical care facilities with as much support and resources as possible in the face of impending pandemic demand. Following a discussion of the ethical considerations and potential challenges in applying the CCSSA guidelines, the authors propose a framework for regional triage committees adapted to the South African context. DISCUSSION: Beyond the national CCSSA guidelines, the clinician has many additional ethical and clinical considerations. No single ethical approach to decision-making is sufficient, instead one which considers multiple contextual factors is necessary. Scores such as the Clinical Frailty Score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment are of limited use in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, the clinician is fully justified in withdrawing ICU care based on medical futility decisions and to reallocate this resource to a patient with a better prognosis. However, these decisions bear heavy emotional and moral burden compounded by the volume of clinical work and a fear of litigation. CONCLUSION: We propose the formation of Provincial multi-disciplinary Critical Care Triage Committees to alleviate the emotional, moral and legal burden on individual ICU teams and co-ordinate inter-facility collaboration using an adapted framework. The committee would provide an impartial, broader and ethically-sound viewpoint which has time to consider broader contextual factors such as adjusting rationing criteria according to different levels of pandemic demand and the latest clinical evidence. Their functioning will be strengthened by direct feedback to national level and accountability to a national monitoring committee. The potential applications of these committees are far-reaching and have the potential to enable a more effective COVID-19 health systems response in South Africa.

Perspectives on the Effectiveness of a Medical Futility Policy.

BACKGROUND: The principal aim of this study was to investigate the function and effectiveness of an institutional policy that outlines a procedure to limit medically futile interventions. We were interested in the attitudes and opinions of careproviders and the members of the Yale New Haven Hospital Ethics Committee that use this policy, the Conscientious Practice Policy (CPP), to address questions on appropriate interventions in the setting of medical futility. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted three focus groups of members of the Yale New Haven Hospital Ethics Committee and critical care physicians, asking participants questions concerning their use of the Yale New Haven Hospital's policy on limiting futile interventions. Focus group transcript results were coded into common themes using a conventional analysis approach. RESULTS: The overarching finding was that the CPP had various levels of interpretation that prevented its effective and consistent use. This was supported by the four main themes from the focus groups: (1) Mixed perceptions regarding communication between careproviders and family members and surrogates before the CPP was invoked contributed to complexity in decision making. (2) It was ineffective to use an ethics consultation to decide whether or not to invoke the CPP. (3) It was necessary to address moral distress in the absence of a policy. (4) The use of the CPP was inconsistent for different patients, based on the degree to which family members and surrogates persisted in their resistance to limiting medically futile interventions, careproviders' comfort with directly making decisions, and bias towards members of certain groups. CONCLUSION: The CPP, as it has been used at the Yale New Haven Hospital, has been ineffective in rationally, fairly, and consistently resolving conflicts regarding the appropriateness of ending medically futile interventions. The CPP, as well as similar policies at other institutions, may benefit from restructuring the policy to more closely align with policies at other institutions where outcomes have been more successful.