Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32853121›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2021

COVID-19-Related Ethics Consultations at a Cancer Center in New York City: A Content Review of Ethics Consultations During the Early Stages of the Pandemic.

Danielle Novetsky Friedman, Liz Blackler, Yesne Alici, Amy E Scharf, Martin Chin, Sanjay Chawla, Monique C James, Louis P Voigt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Ethics consultations in neuro-oncology.Neuro-oncology practice · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors.

Danielle Novetsky FriedmanDepartment of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4668-9176
Liz BlacklerEthics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3008-5941
Yesne AliciEthics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Amy E ScharfEthics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Martin ChinEthics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9949-5036
Sanjay ChawlaEthics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6840-7988
Monique C JamesEthics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Louis P VoigtEthics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1291-4611

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised a variety of ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Limited data are available on how a patient's concomitant cancer diagnosis affected ethical concerns raised during the early stages of the pandemic.

methodsWe performed a retrospective review of all COVID-related ethics consultations registered in a prospectively collected ethics database at a tertiary cancer center between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Primary and secondary ethical issues, as well as important contextual factors, were identified.

resultsTwenty-six clinical ethics consultations were performed on 24 patients with cancer (58.3% male; median age, 65.5 years). The most common primary ethical issues were code status (n = 11), obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (n = 3), patient autonomy (n = 3), resource allocation (n = 3), and delivery of care wherein the risk to staff might outweigh the potential benefit to the patient (n = 3). An additional nine consultations raised concerns about staff safety in the context of likely nonbeneficial treatment as a secondary issue. Unique contextual issues identified included concerns about public safety for patients requesting discharge against medical advice (n = 3) and difficulties around decision making, especially with regard to code status because of an inability to reach surrogates (n = 3).

conclusionDuring the early pandemic, the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 spurred a number of ethics consultations, which were largely focused on code status. Most cases also raised concerns about staff safety in the context of limited benefit to patients, a highly unusual scenario at our institution that may have been triggered by critical supply shortages.

Indexed as

Cancer Care FacilitiesCOVID-19NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Renal CellCardiopulmonary ResuscitationChildDecision MakingEthics Committees, ClinicalEthics ConsultationFemaleHealth Care RationingHematologic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32853121
PMCPMC8258018

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.