Martin L Smith’s research while affiliated with Cleveland Clinic and other places

Background: How caregivers contribute to positive or negative outcomes for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients remains unclear. Our primary study objectives were to (1) identify caregiver support attributes through a retrospective chart review of social workers' psychosocial assessments for LVAD patients and (2) determine how these attributes associated with patients' post-LVAD placement mortality and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support-defined morbidity events. Methods and results: We retrospectively reviewed and recorded social workers' clinical assessments of adult patients implanted with durable continuous-flow LVADs as bridge to transplant, destination therapy, or bridge to decision from January 2010 to December 2014. Associations between caregiver characteristics and patient mortality and morbidity events were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression. Patient follow-up time was calculated as the time from hospital discharge until the earliest among death with LVAD, transplant, or the last day of the study (December 31, 2015). Patients were censored for death with LVAD at the time of transplant or the last day of the study. A total of 96 LVAD recipients were included in this study. Having a caregiver who understands the severity of the illness and options available to the patient (as determined and documented by the social worker; P=0.01), a caregiver who has identified a backup plan (P=0.02), and a caregiver who is able to provide logistical support (P=0.04) significantly mitigated risk of death. The risk of death for an LVAD patient was also significantly lower among those who have at least 1 adult child who lives within 50 miles (P=0.03) and those who have an extended family who can care for the patient (P=0.03). The risk of death was 3.1× more likely among patients who live alone compared with those who do not live alone (P=0.04). No caregiver characteristics were significantly associated with morbidity. Conclusions: This exploratory, hypothesis-generating study suggests that mortality after LVAD placement is impacted by caregiver understanding of patient severity of illness and caregiver presence. This study provides initial evidence to support further work in understanding the associations between caregivers and LVAD patients, as well as interventions that may improve patient outcomes. Clinical trial registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02248974.

Although clinical ethics consultation is a high-stakes endeavor with an increasing prominence in health care systems, progress in developing standards for quality is challenging. In this article, we describe the results of a pilot project utilizing portfolios as an evaluation tool. We found that this approach is feasible and resulted in a reasonably wide distribution of scores among the 23 submitted portfolios that we evaluated. We discuss limitations and implications of these results, and suggest that this is a significant step on the pathway to an eventual certification process for clinical ethics consultants.

A greater understanding of how beliefs and perceptions inform LVAD-placement refusals can help ensure that standards for informed decision-making are met. Here, we report on the factors that influence declination and what accounts for changes in decliners' decision-making process, when and if that occurs. We identified candidates (8 bridge-to-transplant; 6 destination therapy, 7 without designation) who declined LVAD placement (N=21), 11 of whom were identified prospectively between February 2014 and March 2015, and 10 of whom were identified retrospectively using our program database. Of these 21 decliners, 11 candidates persistently declined LVAD placement, with a median time of 175 days elapsing between time of LVAD offer and March 4, 2015. Ten candidates declined for an average of 224 days before agreeing to LVAD placement. Between March 2014-March 2015, we conducted structured interviews with LVAD decliners. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed quantitatively using ATLAS.ti. Our findings reflect the following: declination can evolve over time. Decliners report that their initial declinations were made reflexively, but the 10 decliners who ultimately opted for LVAD placement changed their decisions as symptoms worsened. Decliners have concerns about the impacts of LVAD treatment on mobility, and they distrust LVAD technology. Some decliners believe LVAD placement would impact their ability to receive a transplant. Finally, decliners believe they are not sick enough for LVAD placement when they are stabilized with medical management. Decliners' perspectives are integral for improving informed consent and refusal processes. Our analysis revealed decliners' decision-making processes and factors influencing their decisions. We provide several clinically-based practical recommendations based on our findings. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Standardizing consultation processes is increasingly important as clinical ethics consultation (CEC) becomes more utilized in and vital to medical practice. Solid organ transplant represents a relatively nascent field replete with complex ethical issues that, while explored, have not been systematically classified. In this paper, we offer a proposed taxonomy that divides issues of resource allocation from viable solutions to the issue of organ shortage in transplant and then further distinguishes between policy and bedside level issues. We then identify all transplant related ethics consults performed at the Cleveland Clinic (CC) between 2008 and 2013 in order to identify how consultants conceptually framed their consultations by the domains they ascribe to the case. We code the CC domains to those in the Core Competencies for Healthcare Consultation Ethics in order to initiate a broader conversation regarding best practices in these highly complex cases. A discussion of the ethical issues underlying living donor and recipient related consults ensues. Finally, we suggest that the ethical domains prescribed in the Core Competencies provide a strong starting ground for a common intra-disciplinary language in the realm of formal CEC.

Checklists have been used to improve quality in many industries, including healthcare. The use of checklists, however, has not been extensively evaluated in clinical ethics consultation. This article seeks to fill this gap by exploring the efficacy of using a checklist in ethics consultation, as tested by an empirical investigation of the use of the checklist at a large academic medical system (Cleveland Clinic). The specific aims of this project are as follows: (1) to improve the quality of ethics consultations by providing reminders to ethics consultants about process steps that are important for most patient-centered ethics consultations, (2) to create consistency in the ethics consultation process across the medical system, and (3) to establish an effective educational tool for trainers and trainees in clinical ethics consultation. The checklist was developed after a thorough literature review and an iterative process of revising and testing by a group of experienced ethics consultants. To pilot test the checklist, it was distributed to 46 ethics consultants. After a six-month pilot period in which ethics professionals used the checklist during their clinical activities, a survey was distributed to all of those who used the checklist. The 10-item survey examined consultants' perceptions regarding the three aims listed above. Of the 25 survey respondents, 11 self-reported as experts in ethics consultation, nine perceived themselves to have mid-level expertise, and five self-reported as novices. The majority (68 percent) of all respondents, regardless of expertise, believed that the checklist could be a "helpful" or "very helpful" tool in the consultation process generally. Novices were more likely than experts to believe that the checklist would be useful in conducting consultations. The limitations of this study include: reduced generalizability given that this project was conducted at one medical system, utilized a small sample size, and used self-reported quality outcome measures. Despite these limitations, to the authors' knowledge this is the first investigation of the use of a checklist systematically to improve quality in ethics consultation. Importantly, our findings shed light on ways this checklist can be used to improve ethics consultation, including its use as an educational tool. The authors hope to test the checklist with consultants in other healthcare systems to explore its usefulness in different healthcare environments. Copyright 2014 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.

While valuable work has been done addressing clinical ethics within established healthcare systems, we anticipate that the projected growth in acquisitions of community hospitals and facilities by large tertiary hospitals will impact the field of clinical ethics and the day-to-day responsibilities of clinical ethicists in ways that have yet to be explored. Toward the goal of providing clinical ethicists guidance on a range of issues that they may encounter in the systematization process, we discuss key considerations and potential challenges in implementing system-wide ethics consultation services. Specifically, we identify four models for organizing, developing, and enhancing ethics consultation activities within a system created through acquisitions: (1) train-the-trainer, (2) local capacity-building, (3) circuit-riding, and (4) consolidated accountability. We note each model's benefits and challenges. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to consider the broader landscape of issues affected by consolidation. We anticipate that clinical ethicists, volunteer consultants, and hospital administrators will benefit from our recommendations.

We describe and analyze 13 cases handled by our ethics consultation service (ECS) in which families requested continuation of physiological support for loved ones after death by neurological criteria (DNC) had been declared. These ethics consultations took place between 2005 and 2013. Patients' ages ranged from 14 to 85. Continued mechanical ventilation was the focal intervention sought by all families. The ECS's advice and recommendations generally promoted "reasonable accommodation" of the requests, balancing compassion for grieving families with other ethical and moral concerns such as stewardship of resources, professional integrity, and moral distress. In cases we characterized as finite-goal accommodation, a "reasonable accommodation" strategy proved effective in balancing stakeholders' interests and goals, enabling steady progress toward resolution. When a family objected outright to a declaration of DNC and asked for an indefinite accommodation, the "reasonable accommodation" approach offered clinicians little practical direction, and resolution required definitive action by either the family or the clinical team. Based on our analysis and reflections on these 13 cases, we propose ethically justified and practical guidelines to assist healthcare professionals, administrators, and ECSs faced with similar cases.

Background: Little has been written about models for clinical ethics consultation. By “model” we mean the way in which the engagement between the clinical ethics consultant, hospital staff, and other stakeholders is structured, with a key variable being the degree of integration with stakeholders within the institution or segments of the institution. We describe an innovative model of clinical ethics consultation, which we term “embedded ethics,” involving embedding clinical ethics consultants within clinical specialties and subspecialties based on institutional needs and areas of clinical ethicists’ expertise. Methods: The overarching methodology for this article is a case study, reporting our experience with an intervention that we evaluated using mixed methods. Results: Our results underscore the positive impact that an embedded ethics intervention can have on consultation volume and intensity, as well as clinical staff perceptions of an ethics consultation service (ECS). Conclusions: Our experience with the embedded ethics model supports several intuitions about the benefits of adopting such a model for increasing awareness (and use) of the ECS as a resource for clinicians, patients, and families and of improving clinicians’ satisfaction.