Showing posts with label bioethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bioethics. Show all posts

Non-Beneficial Treatment (Garson Leder 1/7/2026)

 A recording of this presentation can be found HERE (will be added as soon as it is available).

***

Thanks to our Sutter bioethicist, Dr. Garson Leder, for a thoughtful presentation on Non-Beneficial Treatment. This is a heavy (and heady) topic, and I recommend you listen to the presentation if you want to get into the weeds on bioethical conundrums. 

If you just want the brief notes, keep reading!

Any good ethics lecture begins with terms and definitions:

  • Medical Futility: a treatment is highly unlikely to benefit a patient or achieve a meaningful goal 
    • quantitative futility: the chance of expected benefit is judged to be so low as to not justify treatment (sometimes but not always defined loosely as <1% chance of success, though numbers as high as a surgery that only has 30% chance of success may also fall into this category)
    • qualitative futility: the quality of the expected benefit is judged to not justify treatment (quality as defined by who?)
    • physiological futility: the treatment cannot achieve its intended purpose
  • Moral authority: the right to make a decision for another person. 
    • What gives physicians the power to be the decision-maker/moral authority?
      • medical knowledge and experience (medical professionals are often right about likely outcome/course)
      • don't patients still have right to make other/different decisions for themselves (i.e. do we have moral standing to unilaterally refuse treatment?)

  • (Resource allocation-- the question of should one be using limited resources to accomplish a specific goal-- is a different question)
    • A few pearls
      -Continuing treatment is, no matter what, a decision
      -Consider using the term "potentially inappropriate" rather than medically futile or even non-beneficial
      -CA law supports the right of physicians to decline to continue care if it is deemed medically ineffective and/or is considered with "standard of care"
      -Most conflicts about non-beneficial treatment can be resolved with clear communication AND time. 


      Assessing Preferences for Patients who Lack Decision Making Capacity (Andereck & Fulbright 1/15/25)

       A recording of this presentation is available HERE.

      Deep gratitude to Dr. William Andereck and Robert Fulbright for a thought-provoking presentation this week on Decision-making Capacity. This is an issue that we encounter with surprising frequency on the inpatient medicine service, and the distress that decision-making capacity causes on patients and providers is intense. 

      This is definitely a presentation that is better watched than summarized, but I did take a few notes. 

      The concept of Patient Consent first arose in 1914, Benjamin Cardoza, "Every human being with a sound mind has a right to determine what he does with his own body."

      This concept, of course, was brought to light in the context of the Tuskegee Study (which ran 1932-1972) and the subsequent Belmont Report (published in 1979). It was the Belmont Report (which I don't think I have ever heard of before this lecture) in which Informed Consent became a thing. 

      The Belmont Report outlined 3 principles:

      1. Beneficence
      2. Justice
      3. Respect for persons (which was ultimately morphed into Respect for the autonomy of the person)
      Non-maleficence (do no harm) was not included.
      Of note, Dr. Andereck stressed, autonomy at the time was not meant to be interpreted as "the right to demand whatever you want". Rather, it was meant as a freedom from interference, the right to say "no". Somewhere along the last 50 years, it has become interpreted as a "positive right". From Dr. Andereck's perspective, early bioethicists were clear that if a medical intervention does not benefit the people, there is no obligation. 

      Competence is defined as 1) having values and goals 2) the ability to communicate those and 3) reasons to do or not do something related to this goals. Competence is NOT the same as Capacity. 

      Capacity is specific>> the question should always be capacity for what?
      Capacity it temporal>> it can wax and wane
      Capacity is the perspective of a 3rd party>> patients never tell us that they are incapacitated. It must be observed from an outside party.

      Applied to medicine, then, capacity becomes
      1. the ability to 



       A great big thank you for years of ethics support in the hospital AND for a great Grand Rounds on How to Mitigate Moral Distress among Providers by our very own Sutter Senior Bioethicist, Dr.Shilpa Shashidhara. 

      A recording of her presentation is available HERE. Please watch it if you can!

      And here are my notes:

      What is moral distress? 

      Moral Distress was first defined by Dr. Andrew Jameton (1984) as a natural response to violation of one's core values. In healthcare, it is a feeling of uncomfortableness that arise when providers are unable to do the thing they believe is the "right" thing to do. It is an inability to act within our individual and/or professional values. 

      These are ethically challenging situations, where providers feel powerless. 

      Moral Distress can lead to disengagement and burnout, can have negative impact on patient care. Prevalent in high stress environments (e.g. ICU: critically ill patients, family members in distress, etc). Has been magnified by the pandemic: challenging clinical situations, managing really ill patients, not having PPE, concerns about allocating resources in stressed healthcare system

      • "I don't know if this is the right thing to do"
      • "I feel stuck"
      • "Both options are equally bad"
      • "I feel like I am causing harm to someone"

      If not addressed, moral distress takes toll on personal and professional well-being

      3 areas that cause moral distress

      • clinical situations (e.g. non-beneficial treatments that family is requesting, sense false hope with discordant prognosis by different providers, unrepresented patients that cannot make decisions for self and we don't know their values and acceptable quality of life)
      • internal constraints (e.g. fear of speaking up, self doubt, anxiety, wish to not cause conflict, lack of confidence, feeling "stuck" in the middle)
      • external constraints (e.g. power imbalance: RN vs. MD, resident vs. attending; fear of legal action,  poor communication)


      Moral distress is a root cause of burnout. 

      • 42% physicians experience burnout (long hours, overwhelming workload, lack of support)
      • 54% of nurses experience moderate burnout with emotional exhaustion,28% high burnout
      • significant role of burnout in organizational turnover
      How do we mitigate moral distress to best support providers to reduce burnout?
      Identify the problem--> Express a concern

      Use debriefing sessions, specifically interdisciplinary debriefing sessions
      • mitigate negative effects
      • normalize and validate experience of negative emotions
      • supports providers
      • uncovers gaps
      • promotes team cohesion
      • opportunity to explore systemic problems
      Debriefing sessions: goal is NOT just venting session, but also action planning. Both together are more effective
      Part 1: Preparatory: identify needs of healthcare provider, gather relevant information, set goals, plan logistics
      Part 2: Implemental: 8 step method

      4 As to Rise Above Moral Distress (Developed by the American Academy of Critical Care Nurses)
      Can be done as individual or ina group

      What else can we do?
      Targeted education training for providers, promoting provider ethical decision-making. What is appropriate in a complex situation?
      Communication skills and practice
      Don't forget to take concerns to hospital/clinic administration to be sure they understand what is happening and look at systems-based solutions



                      

      Yes, Doctors Can Cry Too: Addressing Physician Grief and Moral Injury (Pedraza, 5/26/2021)

      Muchas Gracias to Dr. Ruth Pedraza for an important presentation this week on Physician Grief and Moral Injury. Dr. Pedraza was the chief resident in charge of the inpatient adult medicine service at SSRRH during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sonoma County (mid December through mid January of this year). She lead her team with grace.  Please take the time to watch a recording of her wonderful and relevant presentation HERE.

      For the readers, here are my notes, but first my personal take home: we health care providers, need to acknowledge that this job is HARD, that the pandemic made a hard job harder, and we all have tons of unprocessed grief that we need to address. It doesn't matter if we are just at the beginning of our career or winding down, or somewhere in between. The weight is real.

      As Dr. Pedraza said at the start, "The culture of medicine is so so rushed, and sometimes it can deny us the right to stop, to process, and to grieve. I did not feel prepared to support my team for such a traumatic cycle. I did not know how to honor our patients, I did not know what was appropriate."


      Each flame in this image represents a patient death on the Adult Medicine Service during a four week cycle 7, mid Dec 2020-mid Jan 2021 (75% from COVID)

      Physician grief

      What is grief? An emotional and physical response to a loss. That loss can be death, but other losses can also provoke grief, including a divorce, losing a friend, losing a job. This has been a year of losses. Emotional grief reactions may include anger, guilt, anxiety, sadness, despair. Physical grief reactions may include trouble sleeping, changes in appetite, physical problems, or even illness. Grief and mourning are different, though we often conflate the two; grief is internal, mourning is an external expression (e.g. crying, art, music, prayer, journaling, etc).

      How do you grieve? 

      Dr. Pedraza reminded us of the 5 stages of grief, outlined by. Dr Elizabeth Kubler Ross (Swiss psychiatrist), based on her work with terminally ill patients (see image below). Initially it was thought that everyone experiences these stages in a linear fashion, but now we know some people may skip some, never experience some, get stuck in certain stages, etc. The truth is that people's responses to grief are very different.


      Many physicians witness death in our professional lives, but we have very little training, acknowledgement, and inadequate space in the medical culture to process our own grief appropriately. Physicians experience emotional exhaustion, isolation, shame and guilt. Unprocessed grief leads to trauma. In some ways, our profession punishes doctors for grieving. 

      We know that physicians can engage in negative coping mechanisms, which can be dangerous for our patients AND our personal lives and families. These may include alcohol, drugs, even firearms

      Do doctors grieve when their patients die? Dr. Pedraza cited a powerful study by Granek et al from Canada, interviewing 20 oncologists varying in age, sex, ethnicity and years of experience. She found that oncologists struggle to manage their feelings of grief with the detachment they felt necessary to do their job. More than half cited feelings of failure, self doubt, sadness and powerlessness. 

      She also found that grief in the medical context is considered shameful and unprofessional. Even though doctors wrestle with experience of grief, they often hide their feelings because it is considered professional weakness. The single most consistent finding in these oncologists was the description of compartmentalization with regards to patient loss. 

      Compartmentalization is a pretty natural impact of continual loss. Denial, disassociation to describe death of a patient-- leading to unacknowledged grief. Leading to distractedness, inattentiveness, irritability, emotional exhaustion and burnout. They also admitted that this would lead them to provide more aggressive chemo, referral for clinical trial or suggest surgery when actually palliative care would have been a better option for that patient. Also impacting ability to communicate with patients about end of life discussions. Half admitted distancing themselves from dying patients, less overall effort toward the dying patient.

      Do you compartmentalize? How does that manifest in your care of patients? What about your care of loved ones?

      What is the physician culture about crying and expressing grief? We all express sadness in different ways; there exist generational differences, gender differences, and specialty differences. What about crying in front of patients? Is it acceptable? Is it unprofessional? The prevailing belief in medicine is that physicians should be composed and calm. While it is expected that it may happen, it's expected to occur in a private place. 2009 study noted that 69% of students, 74% of residents self reported crying due to patient losses

      viral photo (and words) Southern California ER MD after 19 year old patient died


      The truth is that patients desire care from doctors who are connected and feel their emotions deeply.

      Have you cried with a patient? How did that go? Have you tried not to cry with a patient? Why?

      Moral Injury

      Reframing clinical distress. There is an increasing awareness of working in medicine, critical care, and terminal illness

      Burnout--a constellation of symptoms (malaise, fatigue, frustration, cynicism inefficacy) that arise from making excessive demands on energy, strength or resources in the workplace-- is an important notion in medicine, and more than half of physicians experience these symptoms. However, many clinicians have resisted this characterization because it doesn't quite encapsulate what many physicians feel. 

      In 2018, Drs. Talbot and Dean wrote an article on the Moral injury; it was titled Physicians aren't "burning out". They are suffering from moral injury. You can find that paper here

      The notion of moral injury is most often described in Vietnam Vets, returning from a war they didn't believe in. 

      Moral injury occurs when we perpetrate, bear witness to, or fail to prevent an act that transgresses our deeply held moral beliefs. In healthcare, this equates to systems issues that prevent us from putting our patients first.This is an oat that is the core of our working lives. As clinicians we are increasingly forced to consider other demands: EHR, documentation, insurance company, hospital administration. Every time we make a decision that conflicts with our patient's best interest, we feel a sting of moral injustice. The cumulative effect is moral injury.

      Whereas the treatment for burnout is affirming individual coping skills (e.g. yoga, mindfulness, wellness retreats, and meditation practice); the treatment for moral injury is aligning the system's goals with the physician's goals. It is absurd to believe that yoga will solve the problem of treating patients who cannot get the correct medical care, having 12 minutes to discuss huge life choices with patients. The moral injury of healthcare is being unable to provide high quality care and healing in the face of our system. So many parts of our medical system prevent us from spending time with patients, fear of litigation causes us to overtest and overtreat, patient satisfaction scores can silence physicians from providing necessary (but unwelcome) advice to patients.

      Does the notion of moral injury resonate with you? How so?

      The COVID Burden and Unanticipated Grief

      The pandemic has brought grief to a different level for many of us. 

      ICU Physician Perspective. Consider reading  this reflection by Dr. Thanh Naville (UCLA ER physician) titled "I am an ICU Doctor. I am haunted by what I've seen during the recent COVID-19 surge."  She speaks to the notion of how COVID-19 made it impossible to fulfill her own mission statement: help people. How her sense of defeat has been palpable. 

      Let's not forget the disproportionate effect of COVID on poor communities and communities of color. This also was palpable this year at SSRRH.

      And, lest we forget, the outpatient providers were also impacted tremendously. As quoted one outpatient family physician: "I may not have the acute wound of watching people die of COVID in the hospital, but I have a chronic wound. . the space of holding for death of family members."

      What are your wounds from this pandemic? How can you help yourself heal these wounds?

      And it's not just health care workers. Our entire communities are grieving loss of jobs, contact, community, travel, etc. We need to grieve as a community. It is okay to cry. Allow ourselves the space to rest and heal.

      How can we address Physician Grief?

      We may all grieve differently, but grieve we must. For our own good and the good of our patients. Different ideas: death talks, professional grief support, didactic preparation for med students and residents, death rounds (for trainees), personal awareness, writing of clinical obituaries. Many other ways. Each of us must determine most effective personal style for resolving patient loss.

      If you need help, here are some resources for physicians, compiled by Dr. Pedraza.



      Caring for Incarcerated Patients (Lozada, 9/15/2020)

      I have deep gratitude for a powerful Grand Rounds this week by Dr. Christina Lozada, on Caring for Incarcerated Patients.

      Dr. Lozada presented statistics on the state of mass incarceration in this country, reflected on her personal and professional experience of caring for incarcerated patients during her training, and encouraged us to do better in caring for incarcerated patients.

      The US has the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized nation in the world.

      • 4.4% of the world's population, 22% of the world's prisoners
      • 2.3 million incarcerated people in the US, 4.5 million on parole, and 3 million ex-convicts
      • ~870/100,000 US citizens 
      • 57% in state prisons, 27% local jails/prison, 9% federal prisons
      Who are our jail patients? 
      Disproportionately young people of color, poor people, mentally ill people, poor people
      • 34% non-Hispanic Black, 24% Hispanic
      • Black and Hispanic men are incarcerated at 5.1 and 1.4 x rate of whites
      • Mean age 32.1 (jail), 35.6 (prison)
      • 10% are Veterans, 12-17% were homeless in the year prior to incarceration
      • More than half have less than a high school diploma


      Females are the fastest growing population in jails and prisons
      • Compared to men, incarcerated women have higher rates of chronic disease, substance use disorder, and mental illness. 
      • Elevated rates of depression, PTSD and antisocial personality disorder
      • Most incarcerated women have experienced childhood physical and/or sexual abuse
      • 6-10% incarcerated women are pregnant
      Mental health issues are important
      • 25% of all inmates have a mental health diagnosis (even higher for women 30-62%)
      • 70-75% have taken a psychotropic medication
      • Depression, PTSD and substance use disorder all very common. PTSD associated with higher rates of risky behavior including prostitution, IVDU, substance abuse

      Dr. Lozada invoked The 8th Amendment of The Bill of Rights (1791) and Supreme Court Case Estelle vs. Gamble (1976) as the two main pillars of federal law that protect prisoners and should ensure them adequate access to high quality health care. She also called us to review our very own Hippocratic Oath.

      The 8th Amendment guarantees freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle vs. Gamble ensures: access to care (including hospitals and specialists), ordered care (i.e. ordered by a physician), medical care without bias to the incarcerated status, proper medical records, confidentiality, autonomy (right to refuse care). 

      While the law guarantees provision of care for prisoners, it frequently falls short of an acceptable standard of care. This is because standards are vague and/or undefined. There are differences in budgets and policies across federal, state and local jurisdictions.

      Three important ethical issues to take into account in caring for incarcerated patients that may not be well-respected or well understood.

      • Privacy: incarcerated patients have the same right to privacy as any other patients (including HIPAA protections, having officers in the room during interviews/examinations, etc)
      • Autonomy: incarcerated patients have the right to make their own medical decisions and the right to refuse medial care as well
      • Surrogate decision maker: incarcerated patients have the same right to designate a surrogate decision maker in case they are unable to make their own medical decisions (the warden is NOT the default surrogate)

      Correctional Care Companies (private, for-profit corporations that are contracted to provide health care inside jails and prisons) have inverse incentives for care delivery

      • These companies get paid per patient per day: while they provide direct medical care (e.g. urgent care, chronic disease management), any care that requires transfer to hospital or specialist care comes out their profits
      • There have been hundreds of lawsuits against them, multi-million dollar settlements
      • Investigative reporters have uncovered hundreds of preventable deaths: including ignoring visible and growing cancerous tumors, placental abruption and chorioamnionitis leading to fetal demise, untreated DKA, undiagnosed ruptured duodenal ulcers, and more.
      What do we know about how shackles in the hospital impacts care?

      • inability to break falls when ambulating
      • difficulty positioning during seizure management
      • reduced mobility increasing the risk of thrombosis
      • impede physical exam maneuvers
      • prevent development of physician-patient trust
      • reinforce stigma and judgement of incarcerated patients
      Of note, The British Medical Association advocates that patients should be examined and treated without restraints or prison officials unless there is a security or escape risk


      Patients who are incarcerated often experience their hospitalization as a negative one. They feel judged and mistreated. They feel unlistened to and mistrusted. Medical providers often refer to them as "jail patients" and describe them as unreliable, social outcasts, deserving of their medical ailments. Many of us do not have formal training on caring for incarcerated patients nor are we aware of laws and policies in place to ensure they receive good medical care.

      What can WE do as medical providers caring for incarcerated patients?
      • Ask prison officers to remove shackles in order to fully assess patient
      • Ask prison officers to remove themselves from the room or stand at the doorway for more privacy
      • Use accurate and stigma-free language that prioritizes individuals over characteristics
      • Avoid defining people by the crime for which that are accused or convicted
      • Ask if the patient consents to discussing PHI in front of law enforcement officials or asking officers to move out of hearing range
      • Try to make a patient that is incarcerated feel more comfortable disclosing potentially legally detrimental elements of the medical history
      • Become familiar with hospital policies related to the care of incarcerated patients
      • Incorporate education of these topics into credentialing or regular hospital-based education meetings
      • Take a tour of nearby jail medical facilities and put together a list of resources and contacts
      • Ensure careful discharge planning as times of transition
      And finally, consider the following thoughts:

      Resources:
      • AMEND: UCSF center designed to improve health inside correctional care facilities https://amend.us/providing-acute-care-for-seriously-ill-incarcerated-patients-in-the-community/
      • American College of Emergency Physicians: https://www.acep.org/administration/resources/recognizing-the-needs-of-incarcerated-patients-in-the-emergency-department/
      • AAFP Davis DM, Bello JK, Rottnek F. Care of Incarcerated Patients. Am Fam Physician. 2018;98(10):577-583.
      • https://www.prisonpolicy.org/


      Myths and Truths in Hospital Ethics (Shashidhara, 7/1/2020)

      Thanks so much to Dr. Shilpa Shashidhara for kicking off our new season of Grand Rounds for 2020-2021! I have heard Dr. Shashidhara speak on these topics many times, and there is still so much to learn. . .so much to consider. As I sit listening to Shilpa, I cannot help but flash back on all the challenging ethical questions we face in medicine-- unrepresented patients, surrogate decision-makers, autonomy, futility, beneficence, literally life and death. This. Is. Really. Hard. Stuff.

      For your review (and enjoyment), here is a summary of Dr Shashidhara’s Top 10 Bioethical Myths and Truths:
      1. Consent for an unrepresented patient: If a patient is unable to make decisions on their own AND they don’t have a surrogate decision-maker, the ethics team should be formally involved to help facilitate discovery of a decision-maker and if unable to do so, to implement Sutter’s Unrepresented Patient Policy. 
      2. Capacity determination: Per California law, a capacity determination is the responsibility of the attending physician. Attendings can consult other services (e.g. psychiatry) for help, but the attending physician makes the ultimate determination. 
      3. Designating a decision-maker: Even patients with questionable capacity who cannot comprehend complex medical concepts can demonstrate the ability to designate a surrogate. Consistency is the key!
      4. Withholding vs. withdrawing care: Although it may feel different to stop treatments that have already started, it is ethically the same as not starting the treatments at all. Patient’s wishes should be respected. 5. Patients demanding treatment: If treatments are deemed medically non-beneficial, the medical team has no obligation to provide them, even when requested. 
      6. Hierarchy of decision-makers: There is NO hierarchy of decision-makers in California. As long as the person is aware of the patient’s wishes and is willing to act according to their best interests, anyone can be an appropriate surrogate. This is different than a legally appointed decision-maker (DPOA) named on an Advanced Directive. 
      7. On leaving AMA: Insurance companies may decline to pay for a hospitalization for a patient who leaves AMA. Physicians shouldn’t use this possibility to influence a patient’s actions. 
      8. Involuntary Holds: There is technically no such thing as a medical hold in California, but a 1799 Hold gives us 24 hours to re-evaluate the clinical situation and determine next steps for a patient who may not want to stay in the hospital but is not safe to go home. 5150 and 5250 holds are only valid in LPS facilities (which we are not). 
      9. Code status during surgery: By default, all patients are “full code” during the perioperative period, but exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis. Ethics is happy to get involved if a patient really wants to remain DNR during a surgery. 
      10. Sensitive Services: When a patient is unable to participate in care, family members do not have the right to know the results of sensitive testing (HIV and drug testing) with exception of the surrogate decision-maker, who may need to be made aware of such results to help facilitate decisions.

      Diagnosis and Management of Osteoporosis (Hamann 7/23/2026)

       A recording of this presentation is available HERE .  *** Thanks so much to Dr. Kendal Hamann, SMGR Endocrinologist, for an outstanding Gra...