Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37138339›Full record

ReviewBMC medical ethics2023

Clinical ethics consultation documentation in the era of open notes.

Chad Childers, Jonathan Marron, Elaine C Meyer, Gregory A Abel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chad ChildersMarian University College of Osteopathic Medicine, 3200 Cold Spring Rd, 46222, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Jonathan MarronCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, 641 Huntington Ave, 02115, Boston, MA, USA.
Elaine C MeyerCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, 641 Huntington Ave, 02115, Boston, MA, USA.
Gregory A AbelCenter for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, 641 Huntington Ave, 02115, Boston, MA, USA. gregory_abel@dfci.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · USMarian University - Indiana · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2021, federal rules from the 21st Century Cures Act mandated most clinical notes be made available in real-time, online, and free of charge to patients, a practice often referred to as "open notes." This legislation was passed to support medical information transparency and reinforce trust in the clinician-patient relationship; however, it created additional complexities in that relationship and raises questions of what should be included in notes intended to be read by both clinicians and patients. MAIN BODY: Even prior to open notes, how an ethics consultant should document a clinical ethics consultation was widely debated as there can be competing interests, differing moral values, and disagreement about pertinent medical information in any given encounter. Patients can now access documentation of these discussions through online portals which broach sensitive topics related to end-of-life care, autonomy, religious/cultural conflict, veracity, confidentiality, and many others. Clinical ethics consultation notes must be ethically robust, accurate, and helpful for healthcare workers and ethics committee members, but now also sensitive to the needs of patients and family members who can read them in real-time.

conclusionWe explore implications of open notes for ethics consultation, review clinical ethics consultation documentation styles, and offer recommendations for documentation in this new era.

Indexed as

Ethics ConsultationTerminal CareDocumentationEthics, ClinicalHealth PersonnelHumansClinical EthicsEthics ConsultationEthics DocumentationNarrative MedicineOpen Notes

Identifiers

PMID37138339
PMCPMC10158359
OpenAlexW4367857461

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.