ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
End-of-Life Decision Making in Internal Medicine: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Clinical Ethics Consultations.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternal Medicine physicians frequently face complex ethical dilemmas in end-of-life (EOL) care, particularly when prognoses are uncertain and patients lack decisional capacity, surrogate representation, or clear care preferences. Clinical Ethics Consultations (CECs) can provide support, yet little empirical data describe how Internal Medicine teams utilize CEC services.
objectiveTo characterize the clinical features, ethical themes, and recommendations of CECs requested by Internal Medicine services, particularly in the context of EOL care.
designRetrospective cohort study using structured chart review and qualitative analysis.
settingSingle large, urban, academic referral hospital with a multidisciplinary ethics consultation service.
participantsAdult inpatients who received a clinical ethics consultation between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2022 (N = 216). EXPOSURES: Receipt of a clinical ethics consultation. MEASUREMENTS: Primary ethical themes, subthemes, and recommendations were identified using the Armstrong Clinical Ethics Coding System. Ethics recommendations were also categorized by theme.
resultsOf 216 total consultations, 139 (64%) were requested by Internal Medicine services, including 86 (62% of IM consults) from Hospital Medicine. Mean patient age was 62.7 years (SD 15.6); 62% were male. Twenty-six percent (n = 36) lacked decisional capacity and representation. Among Internal Medicine CECs, 53% (n = 74) addressed EOL care. Common subthemes included futility/inappropriate or non-beneficial treatment (56%, n = 41), artificial nutrition and hydration (29%, n = 21), and withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (29%, n = 21). Recommendations included non-escalation (36%, n = 27), continuation of treatment (34%, n = 25), and goal clarification (38%, n = 28). Palliative care was consulted as a separate clinical service and involved in patient care prior to or concurrently with the ethics consultation in 35% (n = 49) of IM cases, and 49% (n = 68) of patients died during hospitalization. LIMITATIONS: Single-center design and lack of qualitative data from requesting clinicians.
conclusionCECs often support complex EOL decision-making in Internal Medicine. Subthemes like futility and artificial nutrition influence recommendations in distinct ways, underscoring ethics' role in navigating uncertainty and supporting patient-centered care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41680547What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.