Frequency of Ethical Issues on a Hospitalist Teaching Service at an Urban, Tertiary Care Center
Little is known about the daily ethical conflicts encountered by hospitalists that do not prompt a formal clinical ethics consultation. We describe the frequencies of ethical issues identified during daily rounds on hospitalist teaching services at a metropolitan, tertiary-care, teaching hospital. Data were collected from September 2017 through May 2018 by two attending hospitalists from the ethics committee who were embedded on rounds. A total of 270 patients were evaluated and 113 ethical issues were identified in 77 of those patients. These issues most frequently involved discussions about goals of care, treatment refusals, decision-making capacity, discharge planning, cardiopulmonary resuscitation status, and pain management. Only five formal consults were brought to the Hospital Ethics Committee for these 270 patients. Our data are the first prospective description of ethical issues arising on academic hospitalist teaching services and are an important step in the development of a targeted ethics curriculum for hospitalists.
© 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine
DISCUSSION
Our data are the first prospective description of ethical issues arising on an academic hospitalist teaching service. These results indicate that there is an ethics epidemiology in the routine practice of Hospital Medicine that has heretofore not been characterized. By this, we mean a discreet incidence and prevalence of ethical challenges in Hospital Medicine that is distinct from that which is encountered by clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services. Although most practitioners recognize the utility of a traditional ethics consultation, there is a surprising paucity of data about the sources of ethical conflict encountered by academic hospitalists at the bedside, particularly those addressed without CEC. This suggests that the criteria for requesting a formal ethics consult could be limited and restrictive, which is both undersensitive and overspecific.10 Because of these limitations, viewing traditional ethics consultation as a proxy for ethical issues arising in daily hospitalist practice would lead to an underestimation of the true prevalence, as our data indicate.
More than one-fourth of the patients admitted to hospitalist teaching services pose ethical conflicts. Some of these are addressed on rounds, some are not, and only a handful of these cases will ever be referred to an ethicist. CEC services are made aware of the “tip of the iceberg,” which accounts for a vanishingly small percentage of ethical issues that arise on daily rounds. Some hospitalists may not involve CEC simply because they believe that the services are not helpful. However, the failure to obtain consultation may also reflect an inability to recognize a “problematic situation” and formulate a referral that might benefit from the assistance of an ethics consultation.11
Our study faces several potential limitations. We are presenting a single-center experience that focuses on the perspective of physicians and trainees. Some ethical issues might have been underestimated because the perspectives of patients, families, nurses, social workers, or other ancillary staff were not directly included. Furthermore, since any ethical challenge could have been discussed on any moment other than on morning rounds, our results may underestimate the prevalence of ethical issues arising from the hospital floors. Moreover, medical teams participating in the study could have been subject to the Hawthorne effect and could have tried to identify a greater number of ethical issues on rounds, which would not reflect actual practice.
CONCLUSION
Almost two decades ago, Coulehan and Williams wrote about the positive impact that ethics and humanities could have if these disciplines could be embedded in the daily practice of medicine, which is as follows:
…ethics and humanities curricula are irrelevant unless they can produce a substantive and continuing impact on hospital culture (…) The idea, of course, is to infiltrate the culture by coopting residents and attending physicians(…) If an ethics program can somehow achieve a critical mass of ‘‘value-sensitive’’ clinical faculty, it may begin to influence the institution’s ethos.12
Coulehan and Williams wrote of a need to bring ethics to the bedside. Our data suggest that an ethics epidemiology is deeply embedded in hospitalist services and is waiting to be fully characterized to better inform the care of patients and guide the professional formation and education of students and trainees. Hospitalists frequently confront ethical problems in daily practice that do not come to the attention of the CEC services or the institutional ethics committee. Understanding this emerging epidemiology presents an unrealized opportunity to improve bedside teaching, reinforce normative reasoning, and enhance patient care.
