Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34088284›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2021

Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology - a case series.

Benjamin Ilse, Bernd Alt-Epping, Albrecht Günther, Jan Liman, Alfred Simon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Benjamin IlseHans Berger Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Bernd Alt-EppingDepartment of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Albrecht GüntherHans Berger Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Jan LimanDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.
Alfred SimonAcademy of Ethics in Medicine, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany. asimon1@gwdg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsStandardised 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.

results27 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.

conclusionsCEC 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.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEthics ConsultationNeurologyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overGermanyHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesClinical decision-makingClinical ethics consultation (CEC)Individual patient willNeurology

Identifiers

PMID34088284
PMCPMC8176721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.