Klinische Ethik als Partnerschaft - oder wie eine ethische Leitlinie für den patientengerechten Einsatz von Ressourcen entwickelt und implementiert werden kann

Zusammenfassung: Ethische Leitlinien für die klinische Praxis erfreuen sich zunehmender Beliebtheit. Damit klinisch-ethische Leitlinien aber überhaupt erfolgreich wirksam werden können, ist noch Pionierarbeit zu leisten. Solche Leitlinien müssen wissenschaftlich stärker fundiert und ihre praktische Anwendbarkeit muss verbessert werden. In dieser Arbeit werden die ersten Schritte des Projekts METAP zur methodischen Entwicklung und praktischen Implementierung einer Leitlinie für eine patientengerechte Versorgung am Krankenbett beschrieben und zur Diskussion gestellt. Das Projekt orientiert sich methodisch an der Entwicklung medizinischer Leitlinien und generiert damit eine forschungs- und konsensgestützte Leitlinie, die systematischer Evaluation und Modifikation unterliegt und Rechenschaft über ihre wissenschaftliche Fundierung gibt. Zusätzlich zur Leitlinie bietet das Projekt in der Form eines Handbuchs ein Entscheidungsfindungsverfahren an, welches unter anderem deliberative Aspekte unterstützt. Das Handbuch konzentriert sich auf ethische Fragen der Mikroallokation und liefert darüber hinaus Informationen über empirische, ethische und rechtliche Grundlagen für Therapieentscheidungen. Anhand eines Eskalationsmodells können unterschiedliche Instrumente nach Bedarf als ethische Lösungsstrategien eingesetzt werden, von der Kurzfassung im Kitteltaschenformat ("Leporello") mit den wichtigsten Fakten, weiterführenden Texten und Empfehlungen mit normativen und prozeduralen Hinweisen, über stationsinterne Lösungsversuche bis hin zum Ethikkonsil. Klinische Partner sind von Beginn an aktiv in den Entwicklungsprozess eingebunden und verbessern so die Praxistauglichkeit und Akzeptanz sowie die Ausrichtung des Instrumentariums an den tatsächlichen Bedürfnissen. Dieses partnerschaftliche, partizipative Vorgehen scheint eine wichtige Voraussetzung dafür zu sein, dass METAP in der Klinik Fuß fassen konnt

How to introduce medical ethics at the bedside - Factors influencing the implementation of an ethical decision-making model

BACKGROUND: As the implementation of new approaches and procedures of medical ethics is as complex and resource-consuming as in other fields, strategies and activities must be carefully planned to use the available means and funds responsibly. Which facilitators and barriers influence the implementation of a medical ethics decision-making model in daily routine? Up to now, there has been little examination of these factors in this field. METHODS: A medical ethics decision-making model called METAP was introduced on three intensive care units and two geriatric wards. An evaluation study was performed from 7 months after deployment of the project until two and a half years. Quantitative and qualitative methods including a questionnaire, semi-structured face-to-face and group-interviews were used. RESULTS: Sixty-three participants from different professional groups took part in 33 face-to-face and 9 group interviews, and 122 questionnaires could be analysed. The facilitating factors most frequently mentioned were: acceptance and presence of the model, support given by the medical and nursing management, an existing or developing (explicit) ethics culture, perception of a need for a medical ethics decision-making model, and engaged staff members. Lack of presence and acceptance, insufficient time resources and staff, poor inter-professional collaboration, absence of ethical competence, and not recognizing ethical problems were identified as inhibiting the implementation of the METAP model. However, the results of the questionnaire as well as of explicit inquiry showed that the respondents stated to have had enough time and staff available to use METAP if necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitators and barriers of the implementation of a medical ethics decision-making model are quite similar to that of medical guidelines. The planning for implementing an ethics model or guideline can, therefore, benefit from the extensive literature and experience concerning the implementation of medical guidelines. Lack of time and staff can be overcome when people are convinced that the benefits justify the effort

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

To speak, or not to speak - do clinicians speak about dying and death with geriatric patients at the end of life?

Research describing healthcare professionals' conversations about issues of dying and death with chronically ill geriatric patients is rare, especially in Europe. The study reviews the willingness and difficulties of physicians and nurses to speak about dying and death with geriatric patients.; Interview study with 14 physicians and 17 nurses.; The majority (21/31) of the interviewed physicians and nurses reported a considerable willingness to speak about dying and death with patients approaching the end of life. Obstacles to addressing this topic included external circumstances such as lack of time and/or privacy (14/31); personal reasons, such as feeling confronted with one's own mortality (12/31); resistance or denial in their patients (12/31); and the cognitive state of the patients (7/31).; Discussing and preparing (the patient) for an end-of-life decision early enough is a prerequisite of good palliative care. It is an ethical obligation on the side of the healthcare professionals to support openness, respect for autonomy, and dignity by addressing issues of dying and death with the patient in order to help facilitate advance care planning

Prinzipien und Diskurs – Ein Ansatz theoretischer Rechtfertigung der ethischen Fallbesprechung und Ethikkonsultation

Definition of the Problem Models of decision making in medical ethics have to establish themselves as being able to lead to ethically right or at least “credible” decisions. For this purpose, approaches of theoretical justification stemming from ethics are vital. However, clinical ethics is sometimes criticized for theoretical deficits. In order to address this criticism, we will try to justify ethical case discussion and ethics consultation by principlism and discourse ethics by referring to a clinical ethics project (METAP). Arguments Principlism and discourse ethics can fruitfully complement each other when used in ethical case discussion or consultation. Thereby, some theoretical as well as practical weaknesses of both approaches can be mitigated. Discourse ethics, for example, safeguards the ethical validity of moral decisions and norms for action, respectively, thus mitigating shortcomings of justification when using principlism. Conversely, principlism answers questions concerning ethical adequacy and functions particularly as a safeguard for appropriate decisions in the individual case. Conclusion By using a combination of these two approaches, a broader justification seems possible rather than by relying on principlism or discourse ethics alone. Even if some challenges persist, and even if the combined model cannot always prevent dissent, it may strengthen practical confidence in the ethical decision by its „double“ safeguards (principles and discourse). This could render clinical ethics more „robust“ that have been missing so far

[Acute care nurses’ ethical reasoning: a thematic analysis]. Ethische Reflexion von Pflegenden im Akutbereich – eine Thematische Analyse

In the day-to-day course of nursing, ethical issues are being openly articulated to a growing extent. However, nurses only rarely systematically address these issues. This subject was explored in interviews with professionals who have a particular focus on ethics.; Gain input for further developing the skills of nursing staff in ethical reasoning.; In two focus groups and four individual interviews, we questioned 14 professionals, including nine nurses, who have a special interest in ethics.; Nurses find it ethically problematic when the wishes of patients are not respected or something is forced on them, creating the impression that the care being given is exacerbating rather than alleviating the patient’s suffering. These problematic aspects are often overlooked because the consequences of the action in question are not immediately apparent. Ethical issues in nursing are often addressed in informal, non-systematic discussions among nursing staff. Nurses actively and confidently engage in discussions on treatment goals, and the teamwork with doctors is usually experienced as being based on mutual respect and partnership. The inherent hierarchical role differences between nursing and medical staff nevertheless manifest in ethical issues.; Through the practical application of ethical reasoning in day-to-day nursing, structured discussions of the ethical aspects of cases and dedicated further education, nurses should learn to better recognise ethical issues in nursing and effectively analyse them and find solutions

Advance Directives in the Neurocritically Ill: A Systematic Review

To determine the frequency of advance directives or directives disclosed by healthcare agents and their influence on decisions to withdraw/withhold life-sustaining care in neurocritically ill adults.; PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.; Screening was performed using predefined search terms to identify studies describing directives of neurocritically ill patients from 2000 to 2019. The review was registered prior to the screening process (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]-Identification number 149185).; Data were collected using standardized forms. Primary outcomes were the frequency of directives and associated withholding/withdrawal of life-sustaining care.; Out of 721 articles, 25 studies were included representing 35,717 patients. The number of studies and cohort sizes increased over time. A median of 39% (interquartile range, 14-72%) of patients had directives and/or healthcare agents. The presence of directives was described in patients with stroke, status epilepticus, neurodegenerative disorders, neurotrauma, and neoplasms, with stroke patients representing the largest subgroup. Directives were more frequent among patients with neurodegenerative disorders compared with patients with other illnesses (p = 0.043). In reference to directives, care was adapted in 71% of European, 50% of Asian, and 42% of American studies, and was withheld or withdrawn more frequently over time with a median of 58% (interquartile range, 39-89%). Physicians withheld resuscitation in reference to directives in a median of 24% (interquartile range, 22-70%).; Studies regarding the use and translation of directives in neurocritically ill patients are increasing. In reference to directives, care was adapted in up to 71%, withheld or withdrawn in 58%, and resuscitation was withheld in every fourth patient, but the quality of evidence regarding their effects on critical care remains weak and the risk of bias high. The limited number of patients having directives is worrisome and studies aiming to increase the use and translation of directives are scarce. Efforts need to be made to increase the perception, use, and translation of directives of the neurocritically ill