Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26423767›Full record

ArticleHEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues2016

What Ethical Issues Really Arise in Practice at an Academic Medical Center? A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Clinical Ethics Consultations from 2008 to 2013.

Katherine Wasson, Emily Anderson, Erika Hagstrom, Michael McCarthy, Kayhan Parsi, Mark Kuczewski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Competing World Views, Professional Norms, and Conscience.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025
    Article
  8. Clinical Ethics Consultations in Cirrhosis Care.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Characteristics and Outcomes of Ethics Consultations on a Comprehensive Cancer Center's Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katherine WassonThe Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 S. 1st Avenue, Bldg. 120, Room 280, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. kawasson@luc.edu.
Emily AndersonThe Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 S. 1st Avenue, Bldg. 120, Room 280, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
Erika HagstromLoyola University Medical Center, 2160 S. 1st Avenue, Bldg. 120, Room 280, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
Michael McCarthyThe Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 S. 1st Avenue, Bldg. 120, Room 280, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
Kayhan ParsiThe Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 S. 1st Avenue, Bldg. 120, Room 280, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.
Mark KuczewskiThe Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 S. 1st Avenue, Bldg. 120, Room 280, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the field of clinical ethics consultation sets standards and moves forward with the Quality Attestation process, questions should be raised about what ethical issues really do arise in practice. There is limited data on the type and number of ethics consultations conducted across different settings. At Loyola University Medical Center, we conducted a retrospective review of our ethics consultations from 2008 through 2013. One hundred fifty-six cases met the eligibility criteria. We analyzed demographic data on these patients and conducted a content analysis of the ethics consultation write-ups coding both the frequency of ethical issues and most significant, or key, ethical issue per case. Patients for whom ethics consultation was requested were typically male (55.8 %), white (57.1 %), between 50 and 69 years old (38.5 %), of non-Hispanic origin (85.9 %), and of Roman Catholic faith (43.6 %). Nearly half (47.4 %) were in the intensive care unit and 44.2 % died in the hospital. The most frequent broad ethical categories were decision-making (93.6 %), goals of care/treatment (80.8 %), and end-of-life (73.1 %). More specifically, capacity (57.1 %), patient's wishes/autonomy (54.5 %), and surrogate decision maker (51.3 %) were the most frequent particular ethical issues. The most common key ethical issues were withdrawing/withholding treatment (12.8 %), patient wishes/autonomy (12.2 %), and capacity (11.5 %). Our findings provide additional data to inform the training of clinical ethics consultants regarding the ethical issues that arise in practice. A wider research agenda should be formed to collect and compare data across institutions to improve education and training in our field.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAcademic Medical CentersAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolDecision MakingEthics ConsultationFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchRetrospective StudiesClinical ethics consultantsClinical ethics consultationQuality attestationRetrospective review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.