A Survey of Physicians' Attitudes toward Decision-Making Authority for Initiating and Withdrawing VA-ECMO: Results and Ethical Implications for Shared Decision Making.

OBJECTIVE: Although patients exercise greater autonomy than in the past, and shared decision making is promoted as the preferred model for doctor-patient engagement, tensions still exist in clinical practice about the primary locus of decision-making authority for complex, scarce, and resource-intensive medical therapies: patients and their surrogates, or physicians. We assessed physicians' attitudes toward decisional authority for adult venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), hypothesizing they would favor a medical locus. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A survey of resident/fellow physicians and internal medicine attendings at an academic medical center, May to August 2013. MEASUREMENTS: We used a 24-item, internet-based survey assessing physician-respondents' demographic characteristics, knowledge, and attitudes regarding decisional authority for adult VA-ECMO. Qualitative narratives were also collected. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 179 physicians completed the survey (15 percent response rate); 48 percent attendings and 52 percent residents/fellows. Only 32 percent of the respondents indicated that a surrogate's consent should be required to discontinue VA-ECMO; 56 percent felt that physicians should have the right to discontinue VA-ECMO over a surrogate's objection. Those who self-reported as "knowledgeable" about VA-ECMO, compared to those who did not, more frequently replied that there should not be presumed consent for VA-ECMO (47.6 percent versus 33.3 percent, p = 0.007), that physicians should have the right to discontinue VA-ECMO over a surrogate's objection (76.2 percent versus 50 percent, p = 0.02) and that, given its cost, the use of VA-ECMO should be restricted (81.0 percent versus 54.4 percent, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed physicians, especially those who self-reported as knowledgeable about VA-ECMO and/or were specialists in pulmonary/critical care, favored a medical locus of decisional authority for VA-ECMO. VA-ECMO is complex, and the data may (1) reflect physicians' hesitance to cede authority to presumably less knowledgeable patients and surrogates, (2) stem from a stewardship of resources perspective, and/or (3) point to practical efforts to avoid futility and utility disputes. Whether these results indicate a more widespread reversion to paternalism or a more circumscribed usurping of decisional authority occasioned by VA-ECMO necessitates further study.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults: a brief review and ethical considerations for nonspecialist health providers and hospitalists.

Given the pace, distribution, and uptake of technological innovation, patients experiencing respiratory failure, heart failure, or cardiac arrest are, with greater frequency, being treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Although most hospitalists will not be responsible for ordering or managing ECMO, in-hospital healthcare providers continue to be a vital source of patient referral and, accordingly, need to understand the rudiments of these technologies so as to co-manage patients, counsel families, and help ensure that the provision of ECMO is consistent with patient preferences and appropriate goals of care. In an effort to prepare hospitalists for these clinical responsibilities, we review the history and technology behind modern-day ECMO, including venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Building upon that foundation, we further highlight special ethical considerations that may arise in VA-ECMO, and present an ethically grounded approach to the initiation, continuation, and discontinuation of treatment.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to chemotherapy in an Orthodox Jewish patient.

OBJECTIVE: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for cardiopulmonary support offers survival possibilities to patients who otherwise would succumb to cardiac failure. Often referred to as "a bridge to recovery," involving a ventricular assist device or cardiac transplantation, this technology only affords temporary cardiopulmonary support. Physicians may have concerns about initiating VA-ECMO in patients who, in the absence of recovery or transfer to longer-term therapies, might assert religious or cultural objections to the terminal discontinuation of life-sustaining therapy (LST). We present a novel case of VA-ECMO use in an Orthodox Jewish woman with potentially curable lymphoma encasing her heart to demonstrate the value of anticipating and preemptively resolving foreseeable disputes. PATIENT: A 40-year-old Hasidic Orthodox Jewish woman with lymphoma encasing her right and left ventricles decompensated from heart failure before chemotherapy induction. The medical team, at an academic medical center in New York City, proposed VA-ECMO as a means for providing cardiopulmonary support to enable receipt of chemotherapy. Owing to the patient's religious tradition, which customarily prohibits terminal discontinuation of LST, clinical staff asked for an ethics consultation to plan for initiation and discontinuation of VA-ECMO. INTERVENTIONS: Meetings were held with the treating clinicians, clinical ethics consultants, family, religious leaders, and cultural liaisons. Through a deliberative process, VA-ECMO was reconceptualized as a bridge to treatment and not as an LST, a designation assigned to the chemotherapy on this occasion, given the mortal threat posed by the encasing tumor. CONCLUSION: Traditional religious objections to the terminal discontinuation of LST need not preclude initiation of VA-ECMO. The potential for disputes should be anticipated and steps taken to preemptively address such conflicts. The reconceptualization of VA-ECMO as a bridge to treatment, rather than as an LST, can allow patients with objections to the terminal discontinuation of LST to receive interventions, such as chemotherapy, that might otherwise be precluded by critical physiology.

The ethical imperative to think about thinking - diagnostics, metacognition, and medical professionalism.

While the medical ethics literature has well explored the harm to patients, families, and the integrity of the profession in failing to disclose medical errors once they occur, less often addressed are the moral and professional obligations to take all available steps to prevent errors and harm in the first instance. As an expanding body of scholarship further elucidates the causes of medical error, including the considerable extent to which medical errors, particularly in diagnostics, may be attributable to cognitive sources, insufficient progress in systematically evaluating and implementing suggested strategies for improving critical thinking skills and medical judgment is of mounting concern. Continued failure to address pervasive thinking errors in medical decisionmaking imperils patient safety and professionalism, as well as beneficence and nonmaleficence, fairness and justice. We maintain that self-reflective and metacognitive refinement of critical thinking should not be construed as optional but rather should be considered an integral part of medical education, a codified tenet of professionalism, and by extension, a moral and professional duty.

Views of internists towards uses of PGD.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is increasingly available, but how physicians view it is unclear. Internists are gatekeepers and sources of information, often treating disorders for which PGD is possible. This quantitative study surveyed 220 US internists, who were found to be divided. Many would recommend PGD for cystic fibrosis (CF; 33.7%), breast cancer (BRCA; 23.4%), familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP; 20.6%) and familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (19.9%), but few for social sex selection (5.2%); however, in each case, >50% were unsure. Of those surveyed, 4.9% have suggested PGD to patients. Only 7.1% felt qualified to answer patient questions about it. Internists who would refer for PGD had completed medical training less recently and, for CF, were more likely to have privately insured patients (P<0.033) and patients who reported genetic discrimination (P<0.013). Physicians more likely to refer for BRCA and FAP were less likely to have patients ask about genetic testing. This study suggests that internists often feel they have insufficient knowledge about it and may refer for PGD based on limited understanding. They view possible uses of PGD differently, partly reflecting varying ages of onset and disease treatability. These data have critical implications for training, research and practice. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows embryos to be screened prior to transfer to a woman's womb for various genetic markers. This procedure raises complex medical, social, psychological and ethical issues, but how physicians view it is unclear. Internists are gatekeepers and sources of information, often treating disorders for which PGD use is possible. We surveyed 220 US internists, who were found to be divided: many would recommend PGD for cystic fibrosis (CF; 33.7%), breast cancer (BRCA; 23.4%), familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP; 20.6%), and familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (FHC; 19.9%) and a few for sex selection (5.2%); but in each case, >50% were unsure. Of those surveyed, 4.9% have suggested PGD to patients. Only 7.1% felt qualified to answer patient questions. Internists who would refer for PGD completed medical training less recently and, for CF, were more likely to have privately insured patients and patients who reported genetic discrimination. Physicians more likely to refer for BRCA and FAP were less likely to have patients ask about genetic testing. This quantitative study suggests that internists often feel they have insufficient knowledge and may refer for PGD based on limited understanding. They view possible uses of PGD differently, partly reflecting varying ages of onset and disease treatability. Internists should be made aware of the potential benefit of PGD, but also be taught to refer patients, when appropriate, to clinical geneticists who could then refer the patient to an IVF/PGD team. These data thus have critical implications for training, research and practice.

Attitudes and practices among internists concerning genetic testing.

Many questions remain concerning whether, when, and how physicians order genetic tests, and what factors are involved in their decisions. We surveyed 220 internists from two academic medical centers about their utilization of genetic testing. Rates of genetic utilizations varied widely by disease. Respondents were most likely to have ordered tests for Factor V Leiden (16.8 %), followed by Breast/Ovarian Cancer (15.0 %). In the past 6 months, 65 % had counseled patients on genetic issues, 44 % had ordered genetic tests, 38.5 % had referred patients to a genetic counselor or geneticist, and 27.5 % had received ads from commercial labs for genetic testing. Only 4.5 % had tried to hide or disguise genetic information, and <2 % have had patients report genetic discrimination. Only 53.4 % knew of a geneticist/genetic counselor to whom to refer patients. Most rated their knowledge as very/somewhat poor concerning genetics (73.7 %) and guidelines for genetic testing (87.1 %). Most felt needs for more training on when to order tests (79 %), and how to counsel patients (82 %), interpret results (77.3 %), and maintain privacy (80.6 %). Physicians were more likely to have ordered a genetic test if patients inquired about genetic testing (p < .001), and if physicians had a geneticist/genetic counselor to whom to refer patients (p < .002), had referred patients to a geneticist/genetic counselor in the past 6 months, had more comfort counseling patients about testing (p < .019), counseled patients about genetics, larger practices (p < .032), fewer African-American patients (p < .027), and patients who had reported genetic discrimination (p < .044). In a multiple logistic regression, ordering a genetic test was associated with patients inquiring about testing, having referred patients to a geneticist/genetic counselor and knowing how to order tests. These data suggest that physicians recognize their knowledge deficits, and are interested in training. These findings have important implications for future medical practice, research, and education.