Guidelines for Resolving ICU Treatment Disputes
When such conflicts arise between clinicians and patients' families, "a fair process of dispute resolution should be undertaken, in which neither individual can unilaterally impose his or her will on the other," according to Douglas White, MD, MAS, UPMC Chair for Ethics in Critical Care Medicine, and co-chair of the committee that produced these guidelines.
"Clinicians should neither simply acquiesce to treatment requests that they believe are not in a patient's best interest, nor should they unilaterally refuse to provide treatment," notes Dr. White, an associate professor in the University of Pittsburgh Department of Critical Care Medicine.
The guidelines emphasise that conflicts in the ICU can be prevented through early and intensive communication between the patient's family and the healthcare team. When conflicts cannot be resolved with ongoing dialogue, the policy statement recommends early involvement of expert consultants, such as palliative care and ethics consultants, to help find a negotiated agreement.
If a dispute remains unresolved despite thorough negotiation, the guidelines recommend a fair process of dispute resolution, involving a review of the case by a multidisciplinary ethics committee within the hospital, ongoing mediation, a second medical opinion, offering family the option to seek to transfer the patient to an alternate institution, and informing the family of their right to appeal to the courts.
The guidelines, published online in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, are supported by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American Association of Critical Care Nurses, the American College of Chest Physicians and the European Society of Intensive Care.
The policy statement also outlines innovative procedures for two additional situations. When families request treatment that is truly futile — ie, it simply cannot accomplish its physiologic aims — the clinician should refuse to administer the treatment and should clearly explain the rationale behind the treatment decision. Moreover, for situations in which medical urgency does not allow compliance with the longer dispute resolution process, the guidelines provide expedited steps that still ensure a fair process.
"These guidelines provide clinicians with a framework to manage treatment disputes with an emphasis on procedural fairness, frequent communication, expert consultation and timeliness," explains co-chair Gabriel T. Bosslet, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine at the Charles Warren Fairbanks Center for Medical Ethics at Indiana University. "We hope that states will adopt laws similar to these guidelines, so that all sides in a particular dispute can have the resources they need to come to a resolution."
Source: American Thoracic Society
Image credit: Flickr.com
Published on : Wed, 20 May 2015
Right when it matters. Right where it counts. Simplify assessments and deliver effective care with Venue Go. Featuring a uniquely adaptable design that goes from cart to table to wall, Venue Go supports Point of Care medicine across...
NovaPort cannulas are designed specially to meet the needs of extracorporeal heart and lung support circuits and perioperative perfusion in minimally invasive heart surgery. All blood-contact surfaces of the NovaPort cannulas are coated with the bio-...
Always in sight, always in mind Features Mindray believes the best way to predict the future is to create it. The revolutionary BeneVision N22/N19 is designed to optimize user experience by satisfying all your clinical demands....
Extracorporeal organ support for enhanced patient well-being Dedicated technology combines both heart and lung support in one single platform – a platform that is universally usable, individual, safe, and compatible with applications of our parent...