Discharging to the Street: When Patients Refuse Medically Safer Options.

Q3 Medicine Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2022-01-01
Georgina D Campelia, James N Kirkpatrick, Patsie D Treece, Jamie L Shirley, Denise M Dudzinski
{"title":"Discharging to the Street: When Patients Refuse Medically Safer Options.","authors":"Georgina D Campelia,&nbsp;James N Kirkpatrick,&nbsp;Patsie D Treece,&nbsp;Jamie L Shirley,&nbsp;Denise M Dudzinski","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ethical obligation to provide a reasonably safe discharge option from the inpatient setting is often confounded by the context of homelessness. Living without the security of stable housing is a known determinant of poor health, often complicating the safety of discharge and causing unnecessary readmission. But clinicians do not have significant control over unjust distributions of resources or inadequate societal investment in social services. While physicians may stretch inpatient stays beyond acute care need in the interest of their patients who are experiencing homelessness, they must also consider the implications of using an inpatient hospital bed for someone without the attendant level of medical need. Caring for patients in an inpatient setting when they no longer require acute care means fewer beds for acute care patients. And when a patient who is experiencing homelessness declines a medically safer option such as a skilled nursing facility, then clinicians may be faced with the sole option of discharge to the street, which raises troubling questions of nonmaleficence and social justice. Here we investigate the different forms of injustice that play out when patients are discharged to the street, and offer a map of the interwoven ethical responsibilities of clinicians, hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"92-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ethical obligation to provide a reasonably safe discharge option from the inpatient setting is often confounded by the context of homelessness. Living without the security of stable housing is a known determinant of poor health, often complicating the safety of discharge and causing unnecessary readmission. But clinicians do not have significant control over unjust distributions of resources or inadequate societal investment in social services. While physicians may stretch inpatient stays beyond acute care need in the interest of their patients who are experiencing homelessness, they must also consider the implications of using an inpatient hospital bed for someone without the attendant level of medical need. Caring for patients in an inpatient setting when they no longer require acute care means fewer beds for acute care patients. And when a patient who is experiencing homelessness declines a medically safer option such as a skilled nursing facility, then clinicians may be faced with the sole option of discharge to the street, which raises troubling questions of nonmaleficence and social justice. Here we investigate the different forms of injustice that play out when patients are discharged to the street, and offer a map of the interwoven ethical responsibilities of clinicians, hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
出院到街上:当病人拒绝更安全的医疗选择。
为住院病人提供一个合理安全的出院选择的道德义务常常被无家可归的背景所混淆。众所周知,没有稳定住房保障的生活是健康状况不佳的一个决定因素,往往使出院安全复杂化,并造成不必要的再入院。但是,临床医生对资源的不公平分配或社会服务的社会投资不足没有重大控制。虽然医生可能会为了无家可归的病人的利益,将住院时间延长到急性护理需要之外,但他们也必须考虑为没有相应医疗需求的人使用住院病床的影响。当病人不再需要急症护理时,在住院环境中照顾病人意味着急症护理病人的床位减少。当一个无家可归的病人拒绝一个医学上更安全的选择,比如一个熟练的护理机构,那么临床医生可能面临着唯一的选择,即出院到街上,这引发了关于非恶意和社会正义的令人不安的问题。在这里,我们调查了不同形式的不公正,当病人出院到街上,并提供了一个地图交织的伦理责任的临床医生,医院和熟练的护理机构。
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
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
期刊最新文献
Dual Advocates in Deceased Organ Donation: The Potential for Moral Distress in Organ Procurement Organization Staff. Duty to Family: Ethical Considerations in the Resuscitation Bay. Home Birth in the United States: An Evidence-Based Ethical Analysis. How Should We Allocate Divisible Resources? An Overlooked Question. New Ways to Help Patients Worst Off.
×
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