Functions, Operations and Policy of a Volunteer Ethics Committee: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Ethics Consultations from 2013 to 2018.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2020-09-26 DOI:10.1007/s10730-020-09426-4
Bryan Kaps, Gary Kopf
{"title":"Functions, Operations and Policy of a Volunteer Ethics Committee: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Ethics Consultations from 2013 to 2018.","authors":"Bryan Kaps,&nbsp;Gary Kopf","doi":"10.1007/s10730-020-09426-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Few institutions have published reviews concerning the case consultation history of their ethics committees, and policies used by ethics committees to address inappropriate treatment are infrequently reviewed. We sought to characterize the operation of our institution's ethics committee as a representative example of a volunteer ethics committee, and outline its use of a policy to address inappropriate treatment, the Conscientious Practice Policy (CPP). Patients were identified for retrospective review from the ethics consultation database. Patient demographics, medical admission information, and consultation information were obtained from the medical record. Consultation notes were analyzed with directed content analysis. The use of the CPP was documented in each case. Groups of interest were compared via two-sample t-tests. There were 178 consultations between 2013 and 2018. The majority originated from medicine services (N = 145, 82.4%). The most common consultation reasons were end-of-life balances of acute and palliative care (N = 85, 47.2%), best interest standard (N = 82, 46.1%), medical futility (N = 68, 38.2%), and code status and intubation status (N = 67, 37.6%). Average age was 65.5 years and average hospitalization before consultation was 51.4 days. 92 patients (53.3%) had a code status change that occurred after consultation. A policy to address inappropriate treatment (CPP) was used in 42 (23.9%) of the consultations. Bivariate analysis demonstrated a reduction in policy use over time, with use in 32.1% of consultations from 2013 to 2016 and 11.4% of consultations 2017-2018, p = 0.002. End-of-life issues were the most common reason for consultation. Our consultation volume was lower than previously-published reports. A policy used to address inappropriate treatment was frequently used, although use decreased over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10730-020-09426-4","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09426-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Few institutions have published reviews concerning the case consultation history of their ethics committees, and policies used by ethics committees to address inappropriate treatment are infrequently reviewed. We sought to characterize the operation of our institution's ethics committee as a representative example of a volunteer ethics committee, and outline its use of a policy to address inappropriate treatment, the Conscientious Practice Policy (CPP). Patients were identified for retrospective review from the ethics consultation database. Patient demographics, medical admission information, and consultation information were obtained from the medical record. Consultation notes were analyzed with directed content analysis. The use of the CPP was documented in each case. Groups of interest were compared via two-sample t-tests. There were 178 consultations between 2013 and 2018. The majority originated from medicine services (N = 145, 82.4%). The most common consultation reasons were end-of-life balances of acute and palliative care (N = 85, 47.2%), best interest standard (N = 82, 46.1%), medical futility (N = 68, 38.2%), and code status and intubation status (N = 67, 37.6%). Average age was 65.5 years and average hospitalization before consultation was 51.4 days. 92 patients (53.3%) had a code status change that occurred after consultation. A policy to address inappropriate treatment (CPP) was used in 42 (23.9%) of the consultations. Bivariate analysis demonstrated a reduction in policy use over time, with use in 32.1% of consultations from 2013 to 2016 and 11.4% of consultations 2017-2018, p = 0.002. End-of-life issues were the most common reason for consultation. Our consultation volume was lower than previously-published reports. A policy used to address inappropriate treatment was frequently used, although use decreased over time.

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
志愿者伦理委员会的职能、运作与政策:2013 - 2018年伦理咨询的定量与定性分析
很少有机构发表关于其伦理委员会的病例咨询历史的评论,并且伦理委员会用于解决不适当治疗的政策很少被审查。我们试图将我们机构的道德委员会的运作描述为志愿者道德委员会的一个代表性例子,并概述其使用政策来解决不适当的治疗,即尽责实践政策(CPP)。从伦理咨询数据库中确定患者进行回顾性审查。从病历中获得患者人口统计资料、入院信息和咨询信息。对咨询记录进行直接内容分析。每个病例都记录了CPP的使用情况。通过双样本t检验对感兴趣的组进行比较。2013年至2018年共进行了178次磋商。大多数来自医疗服务(N = 145, 82.4%)。最常见的咨询原因是急性和姑息治疗的临终平衡(N = 85, 47.2%),最佳利益标准(N = 82, 46.1%),医疗无效(N = 68, 38.2%),代码状态和插管状态(N = 67, 37.6%)。平均年龄65.5岁,就诊前平均住院时间51.4天。92例患者(53.3%)会诊后出现代码状态改变。在42例(23.9%)的咨询中使用了解决不当治疗(CPP)的政策。双变量分析表明,随着时间的推移,政策的使用有所减少,2013年至2016年的咨询中使用了32.1%,2017年至2018年的咨询中使用了11.4%,p = 0.002。临终问题是最常见的咨询原因。我们的咨询量低于以前发表的报告。一项用于解决不当治疗的政策经常被使用,尽管使用随着时间的推移而减少。
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
Positioning Ethics When Direct Patient Care is Prioritized: Experiences from Implementing Ethics Case Reflection Rounds in Childhood Cancer Care. An Ethics Consult Documentation Simplification Project: Summation of Participatory Processes, User Perceptions, and Subsequent Use Patterns. Survey of Moral Distress and Self-Awareness among Health Care Professionals. The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns. Correction to: Evaluation of Interventions to Address Moral Distress: A Multi-method Approach.
×
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