Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series

2021-06-04 | journal article; research paper. A publication with affiliation to the University of Göttingen.

Jump to: Cite & Linked | Documents & Media | Details | Version history

Cite this publication

​Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series​
Ilse, B. ; Alt-Epping, B. ; Günther, A.; Liman, J.   & Simon, A. ​ (2021) 
BMC Neurology21(1) art. 216​.​ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02244-2 

Documents & Media

12883_2021_Article_2244.pdf485.23 kBAdobe PDFdocument.pdf485.23 kBAdobe PDF

License

Published Version

Attribution 4.0 CC BY 4.0

Details

Authors
Ilse, Benjamin ; Alt-Epping, Bernd ; Günther, Albrecht; Liman, Jan ; Simon, Alfred 
Abstract
Abstract Background The concept of clinical ethics consultation (CECs) was implemented to provide support in ethical controversies in clinical settings and are offered in at least every second hospital in Germany. Neurological disorders often require complex decision-making. The aims of this study were to determine which situations lead to CEC in neurology and to investigate the influence of the individual patient’s wishes on the recommendation. Methods Standardised CEC protocols in the years 2011 to 2017 at the University Hospitals of Goettingen and Jena were retrospectively surveyed. The contents were categorised along existing protocol templates of CEC scenarios and subsequently paraphrased and reduced to significant meanings. Results 27 CEC scenarios which were facilitated by various professional disciplines were reviewed. Stroke was the most frequent underlying condition. Nearly all patients were not able to consent. Mostly, the relatives acted as representatives or health advocates. In 67 % of cases, a sense of conflict triggered a CEC; in 33 % a sense of uncertainty was the reason for the CEC request. In 21 CEC scenarios, a recommendation was reached in consensus with all parties involved. In 59 % of cases, a decision was made to continue medical therapy. In seven cases, the patient’s wishes led to a limitation of therapy, while in just two cases this decision was made primarily relying on the patient’s best interest. In only 13 % of cases, a valid advance directive led to respective therapeutic consequences. Conclusions CEC is feasible for consensus-finding not only in conflicts, but also in situations of therapeutic uncertainty in neurology. There is a special importance of the patient’s wishes in decision-making in neurology. However, only in a few cases were advance directives precise and specific enough to have sufficient and decisive weight in therapeutic decision-making.
Issue Date
4-June-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Journal
BMC Neurology 
eISSN
1471-2377
Language
English
Sponsor
Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2021

Reference

Citations


Social Media