The role of the bioethicist in family meetings about end of life care.

There has been little study of the content of bioethicists' communication during family meeting consultations about end of life care. In the literature, two roles for bioethicists are usually described: the "consultant" role, in which bioethicists define and support ethical principles such as those enshrined in the "rational choice" model; and the "mediator" role, which focuses on the enhancement of communication in order to reduce conflict. In this study, we use observational data to explore how bioethicists support the practice of decision making during family meetings about end of life care. In a study conducted in the Bronx, New York, USA, researchers observed and recorded 24 decision-making meetings between hospital staff and family members of elderly patients identified as being in the last stages of illness, who were unable or unwilling to make the decision for themselves. Bioethics consultants were present during five of those meetings. Although bioethicists referred to the "rational choice" decision-making hierarchy, we did not see the systematic exploration described in the literature. Rather, our data show that bioethicists tended to employ elements of the rational model at particular turning points in the decision-making process in order to achieve pragmatic goals. As mediators, bioethicists worked to create consensus between family and staff and provided invaluable sympathy and comfort to distressed family members. We also found evidence of a context-dependent approach to mediation, with bioethicists' contributions generally supporting staff views about end of life care. Bioethicists' called to consult on family meetings about end of life care do not appear to adhere to a strict interpretation of the official guidelines. In order to negotiate the difficult terrain of end of life decision making, our data show that bioethicists often add a third role, "persuader", to official roles of "consultant" and "mediator".

Safe play spaces to promote physical activity in inner-city children: results from a pilot study of an environmental intervention.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effect of providing a safe play space on the physical activity level of inner-city schoolchildren. METHODS: In 1 of 2 matched neighborhoods, we opened a schoolyard and provided attendants to ensure children's safety. Over the next 2 years we directly observed the number of children and their physical activity levels in the school-yard, as well as in the surrounding intervention and comparison neighborhoods. We also surveyed children in the schools in the intervention and comparison neighborhoods regarding sedentary activities. RESULTS: After the schoolyard was opened, a mean of 71.4 children used it on weekdays and 25.8 used it on weekends during the school year. When observed, 66% of these children were physically active. The number of children who were outdoors and physically active was 84% higher in the intervention neighborhood than the comparison neighborhood. Survey results showed that children in the intervention school reported declines relative to the children in the comparison school in watching television, watching movies and DVDs, and playing video games on weekdays. CONCLUSION: When children were provided with a safe play space, we observed a relative increase in their physical activity. Provision of safe play spaces holds promise as a simple replicable intervention.