Review of Outpatient Pediatric Ethics Consults at an Academic Medical Center.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1007/s10730-024-09536-3
George E Freigeh, Hannah Fagen, Janice Firn
{"title":"Review of Outpatient Pediatric Ethics Consults at an Academic Medical Center.","authors":"George E Freigeh, Hannah Fagen, Janice Firn","doi":"10.1007/s10730-024-09536-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Limited data exist in the specific content of pediatric outpatient ethics consults as compared to inpatient ethics consults. Given the fundamental differences in outpatient and inpatient clinical care, we aimed to describe the distinctive nature of ethics consultation in the ambulatory setting. This is a retrospective review at a large, quaternary academic center of all outpatient ethics consults in a 6-year period. Encounter-level demographic data was recorded, and primary ethical issue and contextual features were identified using qualitative conceptual content analysis. A total of 48 consults were identified representing 44 unique patients. The most common primary ethical issue was beneficence and best interest concern comprising 20 (42%) consults, followed by refusal of recommended treatment comprising 11 (23%) consults and patient preference/assent comprising 5 (10%) consults. The most common contextual features were staff-family communication dispute/conflict comprising 28 (58%) consults, followed by legal involvement comprising 25 (52%) consults and quality of life comprising 19 (40%) consults. The most common consulting specialty was hematology/oncology. Ethical issues encountered in the provision of outpatient pediatric care are distinct and differ from those in inpatient consults. Further research is necessary to identify strategies and educational gaps in outpatient ethics consultation to increase its effectiveness and utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-024-09536-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Limited data exist in the specific content of pediatric outpatient ethics consults as compared to inpatient ethics consults. Given the fundamental differences in outpatient and inpatient clinical care, we aimed to describe the distinctive nature of ethics consultation in the ambulatory setting. This is a retrospective review at a large, quaternary academic center of all outpatient ethics consults in a 6-year period. Encounter-level demographic data was recorded, and primary ethical issue and contextual features were identified using qualitative conceptual content analysis. A total of 48 consults were identified representing 44 unique patients. The most common primary ethical issue was beneficence and best interest concern comprising 20 (42%) consults, followed by refusal of recommended treatment comprising 11 (23%) consults and patient preference/assent comprising 5 (10%) consults. The most common contextual features were staff-family communication dispute/conflict comprising 28 (58%) consults, followed by legal involvement comprising 25 (52%) consults and quality of life comprising 19 (40%) consults. The most common consulting specialty was hematology/oncology. Ethical issues encountered in the provision of outpatient pediatric care are distinct and differ from those in inpatient consults. Further research is necessary to identify strategies and educational gaps in outpatient ethics consultation to increase its effectiveness and utilization.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学术医学中心儿科伦理咨询门诊回顾。
与住院伦理咨询相比,儿科门诊伦理咨询的具体内容数据有限。鉴于门诊和住院病人临床护理的根本区别,我们旨在描述门诊伦理学咨询的独特性质。这是对一家大型四级学术中心 6 年内所有门诊伦理咨询的回顾性研究。我们记录了咨询者的人口统计学数据,并通过定性概念内容分析确定了主要伦理问题和背景特征。共确定了 48 次会诊,代表了 44 位独特的患者。最常见的主要伦理问题是获益和最佳利益关切,占咨询次数的 20%(42%),其次是拒绝建议治疗,占咨询次数的 11%(23%),以及患者偏好/同意,占咨询次数的 5%(10%)。最常见的背景特征是员工与家属之间的沟通纠纷/冲突,包括 28 次(58%)会诊,其次是法律介入,包括 25 次(52%)会诊,以及生活质量,包括 19 次(40%)会诊。最常见的咨询专科是血液学/肿瘤学。在提供儿科门诊医疗服务时遇到的伦理问题与住院会诊时遇到的伦理问题截然不同。有必要开展进一步研究,确定门诊伦理咨询的策略和教育差距,以提高其有效性和利用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Evaluation of Interventions to Address Moral Distress: A Multi-method Approach. Correction to: It's Worth What You Can Sell It for: A Survey of Employment and Compensation Models for Clinical Ethicists. Credentialing Character: A Virtue Ethics Approach to Professionalizing Healthcare Ethics Consultation Services. East-West Dialogues on the Ethics of Sex Robots. The SIA Can't Just Go with the FLO.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1