An ethical hierarchy for decision making during medical emergencies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lyden PD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2875330 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This study aims to explore how physicians make sense of and give meaning to their decision-making during obstetric emergencies. Childbirth is considered safe in the wealthiest parts of the world. However, variations in both intervention rates and delivery outcomes have been found between countries and between maternity units of the same country. Interventions can prevent neonatal and maternal morbidity but may cause avoidable harm if performed without medical indication. To gain insight into the possible causes of this variation, we turned to first-person perspectives, and particularly physicians' as they hold a central role in the obstetric team. This study was conducted at four maternity units in the southern region of Sweden. Using a narrative approach, individual in-depth interviews ignited by retelling an event and supported by art images, were performed between Oct. 2018 and Feb. 2020. In total 17 obstetricians and gynecologists participated. An inductive thematic narrative analysis was used for interpreting the data. Eight themes were constructed: (a) feeling lonely, (b) awareness of time, (c) sense of responsibility, (d) keeping calm, (e) work experience, (f) attending midwife, (g) mind-set and setting, and (h) hedging. Three decision-making perspectives were constructed: (I) individual-centered strategy, (II) dialogue-distributed process, and (III) chaotic flow-orientation. This study shows how various psychological and organizational conditions synergize with physicians during decision-making. It also indicates how physicians gave decision-making meaning through individual motivations and rationales, expressed as a perspective. Finally, the study also suggests that decision-making evolves with experience, and over time. The findings have significance for teamwork, team training, patient safety and for education of trainees.
| S-EPMC8791468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvery medical decision is based on balancing medical knowledge, ethical considerations, and patient preferences. Previous surveys have mainly covered the ethical knowledge of medical staff. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of an innovative concept regarding how ethical criteria are applied to clinical decision-making during critical illness.MethodsAn online survey including a short case vignette was carried out at a university hospital among physicians specialising in intensive care medicine in Germany. After free text responses regarding further required case information, the participants were asked to rank decision criteria during the course of the case vignette. A qualitative evaluation was performed by two independent investigators, based on a transcription into categories. This was followed by a quantitative analysis of ranked criteria.ResultsOur analysis has shown that doctors are initially inclined to consider medical information when making treatment decisions. When complications occur, ethical values are more often included in the decision-making. The qualitative evaluation reveiled that the patient's will was consistently regarded as the leading criterion for decision-making. In the quantitative evaluation, patient's well-being, quality of life, and patient autonomy were rated as the most important decision criteria. Economic factors were ranked least important.ConclusionA mixed methods approach is able to reflect the complexity of ethical reasoning within the medical decision-making process, suggesting the feasibility of this concept.Clinical trial registrationThe study was registered under DRKS-ID: DKRS00011905 (April 2017).
| S-EPMC10430832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Visitation restrictions in hospitals during the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic led to great psychological burden for patients, their relatives and employees. For hospitals, they represent a complex organizational challenge with respect to ethics. The present recommendations are intended to support decision-making at the meso- and microlevels.
| S-EPMC8033547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.
| S-EPMC6210494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Substandard drugs are a major public health issue worldwide. Key person such as the Qualified Person in China and Europe is responsible for rejecting substandard drugs during the manufacturing stage. This study applies the Hunt-Vitell ethical decision-making model to study their rejection intentions on substandard drugs. Using the experimental vignette methodology, two scenarios were developed to represent different levels of deviation from regulations in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Responses from 204 Chinese key persons show a decline in deontology, ethical judgment, and rejection intention, and an increase in teleology in the minor deviation scenario, in comparison with the major deviation scenario. The results from the two scenarios show that the Hunt-Vitell ethical decision-making model is well fitted to explain substandard drug rejection intentions. Organizational and occupational commitments have a significant positive impact on deontological evaluation. Whereas, occupational commitments have a significant negative impact on teleological evaluation. This study suggests that strengthening occupational commitment can significantly affect key person's rejection intentions of substandard drugs.
| S-EPMC7081989 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEthical decision-making confidence develops from clinical expertise and is a core competency for nurse leaders. No tool exists to measure confidence levels in nurse leaders based upon an ethical decision-making framework.AimsThe objective of this research was to compare ethical decision-making among nurse leaders in the U.S. and three German-speaking countries in Europe by developing and testing a newly constructed Ethical Decision-Making Confidence (EDMC) scale.MethodsThe cross-sectional survey included 18 theory-derived questions on ethical decision-making confidence which were used to develop the scale.ParticipantsA convenience sample of nurse leaders from the U.S. and three German-speaking countries in Europe who self-identified as holding a leadership position.Ethical considerationsEthical approval was given by the IRB Board of a U.S. university. Participation in the survey implied voluntary consent.ResultsThe scale's item structure dimensionality and subscale's reliability were analyzed and compared between nurse leaders from all four countries. A principal component analysis (PCA) produced a 15-item bi-dimensional EDMC scale yielding a skill-related (9-item) and a behavior-related (6-item) confidence dimension. EDMC subscales showed good-to-excellent internal consistency. In both subscales, U.S. nurse leaders rated their mean EDMC score higher than their German-speaking counterparts in Europe.DiscussionThis exploratory study is the first of its kind to focus on nurse leaders' confidence regarding ethical decision-making in an international context. An overarching factor structure was identified, which is shared by the two samples of nurse leaders and to examine (sub)scales' psychometric properties.ConclusionThis newly developed scale is an effective tool for measuring ethical decision-making confidence in nurse leaders. The promising results of this study should be replicated to ensure validity and reliability of the EDMC scale measuring skill-related and behavior-related concepts and include nurse leaders from various cultural, social, and demographic groups.
| S-EPMC9289993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBoth patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.DesignTwo-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.ParticipantsAddress-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.Main measuresWe asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.Key resultsAbout 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = - 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = - 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.ConclusionsThe need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else's behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.
| S-EPMC7431116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The successful management of a childbirth emergency will be dependent on the decision-making of involved obstetricians and gynecologists. Individual differences in decision-making may be explained through personality traits. The objectives of the present study were (I) to describe personality trait levels of obstetricians and gynecologists and (II) to examine the relationship between obstetricians' and gynecologists' personality traits and decision-making styles (Individual, Team and Flow) in childbirth emergencies; also controlling for cognitive ability (ICAR-3), age, sex and years of clinical experience. Obstetricians and gynecologists, members of the Swedish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology (N = 472) responded to an online questionnaire that included a simplified version of the Five Factor Model of personality (IPIP-NEO), and 15 questions concerning childbirth emergencies based on a model of decision-making styles (Individual, Team and Flow). The data was analyzed using Pearson's correlation analysis and multiple linear regression. Swedish obstetricians and gynecologists scored (P < 0.001) lower on Neuroticism (Cohen's d = - 1.09) and higher on Extraversion (d = 0.79), Agreeableness (d = 1.04) and Conscientiousness (d = 0.97) compared to the general population. The most important trait was Neuroticism, which correlated with the decision-making styles Individual (r = - 0.28) and Team (r = 0.15), while for example Openness only trivially correlated with Flow. Multiple linear regression showed that personality traits with covariates explained up to 18% of decision-making styles. Obstetricians and gynecologists have notably more distinct personality levels than the general population, and their personality traits relate to decision-making in childbirth emergencies. The assessment of medical errors in childbirth emergencies and prevention through individualized training should take account of these findings.
| S-EPMC10076329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDual processing theory of human cognition postulates that reasoning and decision-making can be described as a function of both an intuitive, experiential, affective system (system I) and/or an analytical, deliberative (system II) processing system. To date no formal descriptive model of medical decision-making based on dual processing theory has been developed. Here we postulate such a model and apply it to a common clinical situation: whether treatment should be administered to the patient who may or may not have a disease.MethodsWe developed a mathematical model in which we linked a recently proposed descriptive psychological model of cognition with the threshold model of medical decision-making and show how this approach can be used to better understand decision-making at the bedside and explain the widespread variation in treatments observed in clinical practice.ResultsWe show that physician's beliefs about whether to treat at higher (lower) probability levels compared to the prescriptive therapeutic thresholds obtained via system II processing is moderated by system I and the ratio of benefit and harms as evaluated by both system I and II. Under some conditions, the system I decision maker's threshold may dramatically drop below the expected utility threshold derived by system II. This can explain the overtreatment often seen in the contemporary practice. The opposite can also occur as in the situations where empirical evidence is considered unreliable, or when cognitive processes of decision-makers are biased through recent experience: the threshold will increase relative to the normative threshold value derived via system II using expected utility threshold. This inclination for the higher diagnostic certainty may, in turn, explain undertreatment that is also documented in the current medical practice.ConclusionsWe have developed the first dual processing model of medical decision-making that has potential to enrich the current medical decision-making field, which is still to the large extent dominated by expected utility theory. The model also provides a platform for reconciling two groups of competing dual processing theories (parallel competitive with default-interventionalist theories).
| S-EPMC3471048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePhysicians endorse deprescribing of risky or unnecessary medications for older adults (aged ≥65 years) with dementia, but there is a lack of information on what influences decisions to deprescribe in this population.ObjectiveTo understand how physicians make decisions to deprescribe for older adults with moderate dementia and ethical and pragmatic concerns influencing those decisions.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional national mailed survey study of a random sample of 3000 primary care physicians from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile who care for older adults was conducted from January 15 to December 31, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe study randomized participants to consider 2 clinical scenarios in which a physician may decide to deprescribe a medication for older adults with moderate dementia: 1 in which the medication could cause an adverse drug event if continued and the other in which there is no evidence of benefit. Participants ranked 9 factors related to possible ethical and pragmatic concerns through best-worst scaling methods (from greatest barrier to smallest barrier to deprescribing). Conditional logit regression quantified the relative importance for each factor as a barrier to deprescribing.ResultsA total of 890 physicians (35.0%) returned surveys; 511 (57.4%) were male, and the mean (SD) years since graduation was 26.0 (11.7). Most physicians had a primary specialty in family practice (50.4% [449 of 890]) and internal medicine (43.5% [387 of 890]). A total of 689 surveys were sufficiently complete to analyze. In both clinical scenarios, the 2 greatest barriers to deprescribing were (1) the patient or family reporting symptomatic benefit from the medication (beneficence and autonomy) and (2) the medication having been prescribed by another physician (autonomy and nonmaleficence). The least influential factor was ease of paying for the medication (justice).Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this national survey study of primary care physicians suggests that understanding ethical aspects of physician decision-making can inform clinician education about medication management and deprescribing decisions for older adults with moderate dementia.
| S-EPMC10548310 | biostudies-literature