The formal and informal surgical ethics curriculum: views of resident and staff surgeons in Toronto.

BACKGROUND: Understanding what staff surgeons think surgical trainees should learn and the ethical issues that trainees need to manage can strengthen surgical ethics education. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the 15 surgical specialty and subspecialty programs at the University of Toronto. Semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 13 ethics coordinators from the surgical staff and 64 resident trainees. Data were analyzed qualitatively using modified thematic analysis. RESULTS: All coordinators and trainees felt that ethics education was an important component of surgical training. Real cases, varying teaching methods, and teachers with applicable clinical experience were valued. Trainees identified intraprofessional and interprofessional conflict, staff behavior perceived to be unethical, and their own lack of experience as challenging issues rarely addressed in the formal ethics curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: Ethics education is highly valued by trainees and teachers. Some ethical issues important to trainees are underrepresented in the formal curriculum. Staff surgeons and senior residents are practicing ethicists and role models whose impact on the moral development of residents is profound. Their participation in the formal curriculum helps less experienced junior residents realize its value

What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?

BACKGROUND: Priority setting, also known as rationing or resource allocation, occurs at all levels of every health care system. Daniels and Sabin have proposed a framework for priority setting in health care institutions called 'accountability for reasonableness', which links priority setting to theories of democratic deliberation. Fairness is a key goal of priority setting. According to 'accountability for reasonableness', health care institutions engaged in priority setting have a claim to fairness if they satisfy four conditions of relevance, publicity, appeals/revision, and enforcement. This is the first study which has surveyed the views of hospital decision makers throughout an entire health system about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions. The purpose of this study is to elicit hospital decision-makers' self-report of the fairness of priority setting in their hospitals using an explicit conceptual framework, 'accountability for reasonableness'. METHODS: 160 Ontario hospital Chief Executive Officers, or their designates, were asked to complete a survey questionnaire concerning priority setting in their publicly funded institutions. Eight-six Ontario hospitals completed this survey, for a response rate of 54%. Six close-ended rating scale questions (e.g. Overall, how fair is priority setting at your hospital?), and 3 open-ended questions (e.g. What do you see as the goal(s) of priority setting in your hospital?) were used. RESULTS: Overall, 60.7% of respondents indicated their hospitals' priority setting was fair. With respect to the 'accountability for reasonableness' conditions, respondents indicated their hospitals performed best for the relevance (75.0%) condition, followed by appeals/revision (56.6%), publicity (56.0%), and enforcement (39.5%). CONCLUSIONS: For the first time hospital Chief Executive Officers within an entire health system were surveyed about the fairness of priority setting practices in their institutions using the conceptual framework 'accountability for reasonableness'. Although many hospital CEOs felt that their priority setting was fair, ample room for improvement was noted, especially for the enforcement condition