Developing clinical ethics support for an Australian Health Service: A survey of clinician's experiences and views.

BACKGROUND: International developments suggest that providing clinical ethics services to help clinicians negotiate ethical issues that arise in clinical practice is beneficial and reflects best practice in promoting high ethical standards and patient-centered care. The aim of this study was to explore the needs and experiences of clinical staff members to inform the development of future clinical ethics support. METHODS: Health professionals at a large regional health service completed an online survey containing questions about the frequency of ethical and legal issues encountered in clinical practice, the type of situations that gave rise to the ethical and/or legal uncertainty or concern, how clinicians currently address these issues, and what support would be welcome. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 369 staff members, including 61% with more than 10 years in the profession and 51% in nursing/midwifery. Two-thirds (66%) indicated they often considered ethical implications of their clinical decisions, and half (49%) often considered the legal implications. More than half (58%) were often/occasionally concerned about the ethically right thing to do. Patient requests for borderline treatment (47%), staff disagreements about patient care (48%), and patients declining recommended treatment (54%) were the most frequent reasons given for ethical or legal uncertainty. Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated that the way their department addressed ethical issues could be improved and 85% agreed that there is a need for more discussion on ethical issues. The majority (82%) of respondents had encountered ethically challenging clinical situations where additional support would have helped. Common approaches to issues were discussion with colleagues/supervisor (91.1%), discussion at handover/group forums (50.8%), and consultation with guidelines/protocols (60.9%). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of clinical staff members surveyed have encountered ethically/legally challenging cases daily for which they have often sought additional advice. This study indicates that many clinical staff members would welcome some form of additional clinical ethics support including advice and education.

Living uterus donation and transplantation: experience of interest and screening in a single center in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about attitudes toward uterus donation and transplantation in society and the interest of the women the treatment is aimed to assist. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the interest of recipients and living donors in our uterus transplantation program; it describes the screening protocol we developed and the results of the screening and reports demographic data and characteristics of screened candidates. STUDY DESIGN: Initial screening and evaluation included physical examinations by a gynecologist and a transplant surgeon; psychological evaluation; imaging (x-ray, computed tomography, ultrasound); blood tests; immunological testing; viral, bacterial, and fungal testing; drug screen; hormonal testing; Papanicolau smear; urinalysis; and electrocardiogram. For selected recipients, the process also included in vitro fertilization. RESULTS: A total of 351 women contacted our department with interest in participating in uterus transplantation; 272 were potential recipients and 79 were potential donors. Among these women, 179 potential recipients and 62 potential donors continued the evaluation after the initial telephone screening. The mean age of the donor candidates was 40 years; all had completed their own family, and 80% were nondirected. Most recipient candidates (92%) had an anatomical lack of the uterus, and of these, 36% had a congenital malformation. The women with a congenital uterine absence were in general younger than the women in the group whose uterus had been removed (mean of 28 and 33 years, respectively). In every step of the initial screening and evaluation process, there were donor and recipient candidates that chose not to continue the process. The reasons for self-withdrawal after expressing interest were not returning phone calls or e-mails (17 donors and 76 recipients); after initial phone screening, no longer interested (1 donor and 9 recipients); in step 1, health history questionnaire not returned after 1 reminder (10 donors and 9 recipients); step 2, not right in their current life situation (2 donors and 2 recipients), and in step 3, chose another way to achieve motherhood (1 recipient). Most donor and recipient candidates (52% and 78%, respectively) could be screened out (because of self-withdrawal or transplant team's decision) during the noninvasive and cost-efficient initial screening. CONCLUSION: Our initial experience shows a great interest in participating in a trial of uterus transplantation by both potential recipients and donors. It is the first study to show interest in nondirected donation. A sufficient but thoughtful screening process of living donors and recipients is essential and should aim both to assure donor/recipient safety and to provide good quality grafts.