Ashar Prima, Dewi Gayatri, Yati Afiyanti, Christantie Effendy
Background: Indonesia faces a growing double burden of non-communicable diseases, particularly cancer. The latest data from the Global Cancer Observatory (Globocan) indicates over 408,661 new cases and 242,099 cancer-related deaths in 2022, with a projected 63% increase in the case burden between 2025 and 2040 without strategic intervention. Although a new legal framework through Health Law No. 17 of 2023 and the Minister of Health Decree (KMK) No. HK.01.07/MENKES/2180/2023 has mandated palliative care as an integral component of health services, its implementation still faces significant systemic barriers. Policy and Implications: This policy brief analyzes the disconnection between the policy mandate and on-the-ground reality, identifying critical gaps in accessibility, healthcare workforce capacity particularly among nursesand financing mechanisms through the National Health Insurance (JKN) program. The failure to effectively integrate palliative care not only causes unnecessary suffering for millions of patients but also burdens the health system with inefficient costs and suboptimal end-of-life care, reflected in the high "financial toxicity" experienced by patients. Recommendations: We recommend a four-pillar strategy: (1) Formalize and standardize palliative services within the JKN benefits package with a clear financing model to address regulatory ambiguity; (2) Develop a national competency-based palliative education and training strategy for all health workers, with a focus on empowering nurses in primary care; (3) Implement a decentralized and tiered palliative care delivery model centered on Community Health Centers (Puskesmas) to ensure equitable access; and (4) Launch a national public education campaign to destigmatize palliative care and increase awareness. Conclusion: The integration of palliative care is not merely an option but a strategic and ethical imperative for achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in Indonesia. It is a cost-effective investment to improve patients' quality of life, support families, and ensure the sustainability of the national health system in facing future non-communicable disease challenges.
Open access
Healthcare Systems and Reforms
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
The introduction of Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) legislation across Australia has presented challenges to clinicians, who have had to learn about new processes and, in some cases, to consider ethical and legal issues they have not previously encountered. For the most part, the adjustments have been managed smoothly, even if not all misgivings or uncertainties have been resolved. Where innovative changes are being introduced, it is important to identify and monitor concerns that arise in the community, including those of practitioners. This can be achieved by the conduct of surveys, the results of which may be used to guide further action on institutional, community and individual levels. This is especially important while the change process is getting underway, as is the case in New South Wales (NSW), where VAD legislation has only recently come into effect. The study by Light et al.1 of attitudes to VAD amongst clinicians in NSW provides such useful information. It shows – reassuringly for supporters – that most agree with the legislation. However, the value of this study is not that a majority in favour of VAD resolves the surrounding issues for all time. Rather, its main utility derives from the questions it raises but leaves unanswered and which will undoubtedly stimulate community discussion. These questions, moreover, have relevance not just for NSW but also across other jurisdictions, including Victoria, where a review of the VAD legislation is currently in progress. Light et al.'s study shows that the support for VAD amongst clinicians is not only widespread but also extends across all disciplines, even if levels of actual support vary somewhat between different areas of work, and it provides an indication of how perceptions have changed over time. Although in this case direct comparisons may be imprecise, it seems clear that acceptance of VAD amongst Australian health professionals has increased significantly over the past decade during the period in which legislation has been progressively introduced in various jurisdictions. On the other hand, it also shows that, despite such positive expressions, only a small proportion of practitioners is prepared to become directly involved, signalling potential problems for attempts to establish the expertise required to ensure the effective operation of the new system. In Victoria, this small number of participating practitioners has been shown to have an impact on the burden of care shouldered by the practitioners, as well as on the ability for patients to access their services.2 Despite the revealing nature of the figures, as with quantitative research in general, the numerical data cannot capture all consequential nuances of opinion, for which a more detailed, fine-grained analysis of qualitative investigation would be needed to fill in the details. It cannot show, for example, how or why individual clinicians make their choices, the nature of their interactions with patients and families or the impact of their experiences on their own future practice. Nor can a survey resolve ethical disagreements. This fact has not prevented polls from being used to exert political pressure on policymakers in the past: indeed, some studies have been instrumental towards this very outcome, provoking critical reflections on how the wording of a question can increase the chances of obtaining a desired outcome.3, 4 Nonetheless, the existence of a body of opinion about certain ethical issues can help clarify what is at stake and stimulate debate in affected communities. As obvious as it may sound, numerical studies cannot resolve questions of truth or ethical validity. Even widespread agreement at the level of public opinion cannot be taken as proof that a question has been, or can be, settled. High levels of unanimity cannot substitute for or circumvent ongoing, ethical discourse, in which all questions, including those claimed by some protagonists to be closed, are potentially subject to rigorous scrutiny. One of the main sources of ethical complexity about VAD arises from the multiplicity of cultural and religious perspectives within the community. Such differences can sometimes be recognised by subgroup analysis of sufficiently large quantitative data sets. However, even here, results may be misleading because responses can vary widely within population groups, which often lack homogeneity and consensus. Notwithstanding this, it is important for policymakers and health professionals to remain alert to issues of cultural sensitivity, in relation to which both principles and practices may need to be adjusted. Numerous studies have drawn attention to the array of possible concerns, which may vary according to cultural backgrounds, professional roles, religious beliefs and family contexts.5, 6 These considerations lead to an important conclusion about VAD and the ways in which it is understood, applied and evaluated. VAD is not just one thing; it is not just a piece of legislation or a single moral act. Rather, it is a focal point for a vast array of issues and concerns, ranging from the meanings attached to life and death, grief and bereavement, pain and suffering, the importance of trust, loyalty and care, and fears of abandonment and dependency. It raises questions about the relationship between law and ethics and the processes available in a society for resolving, or accommodating, ethical differences. For this reason, it cannot be summarised or evaluated in relation to just one set of variables. It is truly multidimensional, a kind of palimpsest of accumulated voices and views from multiple perspectives. For the same reason, it is worth noting that the ferment does not cease after a law has been passed. On the contrary, legislation itself should be regarded as an invitation for ongoing discussion and ethical reflection, which legislators should welcome as important for the refinement of the system. This is not always recognised, as appears to be the case at present in Victoria, where the terms of reference for the mandated review appear to have been set in a manner seeking to limit rather than stimulate public debate. So, what is the important message? That we need to continue to monitor attitudes to and beliefs about VAD, not just in the health professional community but more broadly, and to ensure that the multidimensional conversations continue. Even where VAD programmes appear to be functioning effectively, there is an unending need for ongoing review, using quantitative surveys and other research methodologies, and critical discussion. The establishment of a legal framework for VAD is not the end point: if it is successful it will open up fecund new territory within which ethical experience can continue to be deepened and enriched.
Kimberly DiMaria; C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Ann Arbor, MichiganSurvival after in-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with resuscitation team performance and adherence to American Heart Association (AHA) resuscitation algorithms. The primary aim was increased resuscitation team performance during simulation scenarios as evidenced by improved modified Clinical Performance Tool (mCPT) scores. The secondary aim was improved adherence to AHA resuscitation guidelines during actual code events. Process measures, including frequency of simulations, were used to determine proof of concept.In 2021, a review of resuscitation events in the cardiac progressive care unit (CPCU) revealed poor compliance with AHA guidelines. One of the most critical times of code performance in the CPCU is during the initial response, before code team arrival, which prompted development of a simulation intervention that focused on improving team performance during the initial stages of resuscitation. A single-center, prospective, interventional quality improvement project, First 5-Minute Drills, was developed to provide concise, repeated opportunities for CPCU team members to practice low-frequency, high-risk skills, and crisis resource management principles. Team performance during simulations was directly observed and evaluated using an mCPT score, a 20-point scoring tool that measures team performance of 10 different skills. A t test was used to compare mean mCPT scores at 3 periods. Adherence to AHA algorithms during patient codes was assessed via a retrospective review. Patient resuscitations were evaluated using a standardized scorecard comprising 10 evidence-based treatment recommendations embedded within the AHA resuscitation algorithms.Over 19 months, 48 First 5-Minute Drills were conducted and 238 team members participated. The mCPT was administered at various time points during the study, and results demonstrated a 35% improvement in code team performance. There was a statistically significant increase in mCPT scores from 14.3 to 18.3 (P = .02). Pre-post analysis of 4 actual code events demonstrated a 50% improvement in adherence to AHA algorithms. First 5-Minute Drills resulted in improved simulation resuscitation team performance and adherence to AHA algorithms during real-time code events in the CPCU. The low-cost, high-yield First 5-Minute Drills intervention is generalizable to other departments and hospitals.Eunice Santos, Jimmy Nguyen; Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CaliforniaThe rate of central line [catheter]–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) with pulmonary arterial catheter (PAC) use is high. In the advanced heart failure unit (AHFU), PAC CLABSIs are associated with increase morbidity, cost, and loss of eligibility for a heart transplant. The goal for this initiative was to determine whether the optimization of a nursing maintenance bundle created in 2018 in the AHFU to reduce PAC CLABSIs sustained fewer than 3 PAC CLABSIs per year for 5 years.In the AHFU, PACs are used for heart transplant evaluation and heart transplant listing. In 2017, there were 10 PAC infections at our institution. Feedback from case reviews for PAC CLABSIs in 2017 showed problems maintaining occlusive dressings in these catheters. In 2018, a quality improvement project was implemented to address challenges associated with PAC maintenance. The project introduced new PAC dressing kits and development of education for nurses caring for PACs in the AHFU. The standard central catheter dressing kit included a single transparent bandage, a chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) swab, sterile gloves, and tweezers. The new PAC kit included a second anchoring transparent bandage and CHG swab. All the nurses were educated on the use of the PAC dressing kit—specifically the application of 2 transparent bandages to maintain an occlusive dressing, narrow beard clipping, and CHG bathing. In 2021, introduction of weekly central catheter rounds consisted of epidemiology nurse and nursing leadership rounding on patients with PACs. Sustainment of the project included permanent changes in nursing education, dressing kits, and close monitoring by epidemiology nurses and nursing leadership.PAC CLABSI rates were analyzed using the organization’s hospital-acquired infection dashboard from January 2018 to July 2023. Results showed that the PAC nursing maintenance bundle reduced PAC CLABSIs through the 5-year study period. In 2018, the year of implementation, there were 3 PAC CLABSIs in the AHFU. There was 1 PAC CLABSI in the AHFU in each of 2019, 2020, and 2023; there were 2 CLABSIs in 2021. Implementation of the PAC nursing maintenance bundle, multidisciplinary collaborations, continued nursing education, and adherence to the PAC nursing maintenance bundle during the 5-year period accomplished organizational goals in improving CLABSI rates and improving patient outcomes.Isabel Madrigal, Melissa Parodi; Doctors Hospital, Coral Gables, FloridaCentral line [catheter]–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are among the most common hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). CLABSIs are serious infections that can result in longer hospital length of stay, increased cost, and increased risk for death. In February 2021, the critical care unit (CCU) leadership team reviewed the unit CLABSI rates of 11.33 for the third quarter (Q3) of calendar year 2020 (CY20) and 9.32 for Q4 CY20. The CCU leadership team identified an opportunity to implement an inter-professional quality improvement team.In March 2021, the CLABSI interprofessional quality improvement team met to discuss the current CLABSI rates and review the specific patient cases. The team consisted of nurse leaders, clinical nurses, infection prevention nurses, performance improvement nurses, pharmacists, and In the CCU CLABSI rate was patient The interprofessional quality improvement team CLABSI prevention education for nurses and during the of and 2021. All nursing education evidence-based as catheter and compliance with the central catheter maintenance education consisted of catheter and central catheter were educated to central catheter as a central catheter in the as the as the second as the third and as the CCU leadership team implemented central catheter and real-time for The central catheter consisted of of and dressing The leadership team CLABSI bundle compliance on central catheter were as of the CCU rounds to central catheter The CLABSI rate for through was The intervention resulted in a in CLABSI for that within 5 of a code of of cardiac can to the In 2021, a was implemented to with In this was to to nurses time for practice with and of code in a of the for a quality improvement In simulations and a to and times were developed through a multidisciplinary Feedback from a simulation a nursing development and resulted in the to the simulation to maintain the and our quality improvement project, an education was to the time to included an increase in practice with and the cardiac code to the and of The of the simulation is to practice the to the The simulation is repeated after a simulations, time to was the of the for increased from to from the to second time to during the simulation was time to during the second simulation was improved time to by an of the the time to and from the nursing was to to an in the of in than 5 of this study is to an evidence-based initiative in the care unit to by patients for a heart transplant are by cardiac in the an increase in patients on the heart transplant by of these for with nursing a was and at the were with the and to a each of the unit a on the to The by to are and 1 for the and 1 for the a to our a was as a for heart transplant to and by and other a is and a in the are to on the to for a heart the of for are on the months, patients for a heart transplant. The a rate of patients were to the other with the use of the to and on In to a of the a of to other A of and patients each review was for this of Medical Center, July and February the cardiac care unit central line [catheter]–associated bloodstream infections which was an increase from that in 5 in 2020, in 2021, and in that of nurses in the than 2 of on the the of CLABSIs for the of the the to on to CLABSIs and improving CLABSI by various evidence-based can increase a length of by an of and can and per In the care CLABSIs with to team rounding to reduce of central the for the during were on each to a was are on A dressing was created to were for dressing changes as for patients with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) The unit education in In that education can result in a reduced of included dressing changes by the nurses and CHG by the nursing CHG reduce CLABSI to were educated on using A was created to points CLABSI A unit quality which included an of CLABSI was for with than 2 on the was to reduce CLABSIs from in to in 4 CHG treatment compliance improved from to compliance improved in 4 dressing and dressing dressing and and and can used as an to CLABSI rates within our which is 1 the goals for CLABSIs using various evidence-based can reduce in patient length of and improved various to as as to maintain the and project was to standard for hospital-acquired infections and in an care hospital with critical care on patient and are for care line [catheter]–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and infections are 2 and increased to In the critical care of care continued to an increase in CLABSIs and which the clinical nurse to a analysis and Patient were developed using standard and evidence-based to patient and quality in critical The with the nursing and an interprofessional team to implement and bundle for these specific The nursing a by unit and the implemented standard for CLABSIs and and at the The a to discuss new and an opportunity for the to and provide and CLABSI and and initiative resulted in an in CLABSIs and a in year used the to compliance with a new CLABSI initiative using the was than for the quarter and sustained through Clinical nurses were to a in the use of in with The identified for rounding patients at risk for The evidence-based bundle compliance by standard in a in CLABSIs and The with clinical nurses by education and at the the clinical nurse improved resuscitation quality by evidence-based for resuscitation quality of in resuscitation via the the that a of on 4 of in time to in 2 is the time to of 5 for and of cardiac events of poor the hospital was poor for of and time to The reviewed and implemented evidence-based for improving and In 2018, each was a specific with specific to the of the codes were introduced in to increase and The code was for of and education was with The weekly review of in were the with and the code and code resulted in improved the There was a of and In 2021, the and There were and 5 in 2021, and 1 in and 5 and in of The hospital the for for for the in 4 measures and is on to the for Hospital, was a significant in an care unit at a prevention that the rate was the rate of than The goal was to reduce the rate to than by a new are and patient from The an was in The identified opportunity to the of the Process The included 3 and and the of the the use of 3 and 2 chlorhexidine gluconate that was through a initial was that from the there was a that the of the infection was from an The were in a for The was by and resource nurses for the 3 the nurses on the unit were and were the of the the rate was rate resulted in a for a in and the of the The initial resulted in a The an rate of The results showed that the was in a goal of than The using the that a standardized reduce in patient goal of this evidence-based quality improvement initiative was to the of infection within critical and care a through a of using chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for catheter care and bathing. were in the rate of in significant on nursing infection is a common infection and is associated with an catheter in of cases. the evidence-based catheter care bundle and for catheter the of in critical and care that use of CHG for catheter care reduce of significant The for and a for care that CHG for and of the of catheter to the A multidisciplinary team of infection prevention nurses, and quality developed a for CHG that included the of catheter with a CHG A standardized tool was developed and used to for was for in a an and a of in the intervention were reduced by = during the patients on which during the other were in that the increase to in the the the in of and among nurses a CHG catheter care and a intervention to reduce the of Medical Center, care unit new nurses to in caring for a patient and advanced in other nursing care of this project is to increase the of nurses through the and of a care unit that focused on time for new nurses of of for through an 1 of of and of of the that is the are in the of new A that on was the in and through of a from arterial catheter and catheter and were The with a code in a simulation was after each to for and and to showed that increased by a before and after on the in the arterial and demonstrated an increase in and The of increased and were All the this for new nurses by through a Medical Center, the care unit there are from advanced cardiac to advanced cardiac including heart and heart care is for each from advanced and the to in The goal is to increase of nurses during crisis management and to reduce the of code of a of were in and on advanced cardiac in simulation was created to patients in the in scenarios were created and including in a patient with in a patient a heart and a In an a patient with a from patient to and to is are to by as the patient In this on cardiac advanced and from the to most and use before to and were used to included time for of the and showed the of were in and was reduced from to In for practice with that provide a for revealed to with the and scenarios in the Hospital, and implement measures to in patients in the care unit to reduce to increased by in the for of the during year use of is associated with risk of in patients and to permanent loss of our by with for the used at to and a review and to educated on these which included using with a at the to and the the per to the to the of the of the of the to on the the there is than of for 2 nurse and the after 10 for a of to loss of created a for that the time and the compliance with our The was and used to the at analysis from from for of the in there to in the of this with an time of and than compliance with the from are with the measures in the with the and and nurses to to other at of goal of this initiative was to an increased rate of infections by to reduce the catheter standardized in a use and to were through nursing education, and improvement multidisciplinary and use of with risk of to increased morbidity, length of stay, and of of are using with the of prevention of is to for which can result in and The the of the of observed and the of and is used for The is used as a quality improvement by to and compare with and an increase in was hospital to address the using an prevention The included a and of with an leadership implemented a compliance with education to of the and use of the new of revealed a statistically significant in the after of the intervention (P with from before the intervention to the hospital 1 in the after with 4 in the 3 of the intervention for the an risk of Patient nurses are to implement practice changes that the of nursing provide education, and use Medical Center, a for of as that the of by the as a an to of an that the time for of in the to can the of The of the project was to a that this and care for the of in use an identified care unit nurses the modified failure tool each The risk a patient with the score, and on the and the the is in The reviews the patient and patients are identified for of goal of the is to to a from a and that goal met to The implemented at 4 of the is a in patients from to on the of from which the of The and the and of nurses and in the care of the and in the the of for central catheter there was an increased of infections the care team was to and address in care The team used with to implement changes in the prevention of central line [catheter]–associated bloodstream infection included the use of care of dressing application and clinical team by nurses, was to as a resource for and practice opportunities to The on patients with and with and dressings central in our were with to dressing application on of the catheter in of was to the the standard of care to that of central catheters. The the to the to in the of The to discuss the use of use with 3 of our CLABSIs were to catheters. the catheter within 3 maintaining and in practice was through with including unit and the was there a in CLABSI cases. the quarter of there CLABSIs in the there CLABSIs the increased on an increased compliance with maintenance for central and catheters. of resulted in increased and The continued to an of nurses practice Medical Center, goal of this project was to determine the of a care on and and increase in the and of and use of in the care unit are to reduce length of stay, and resource most patients in the for of patients at risk of a for patients met were to a of and poor The for nursing and which are used to and that as a the for of for patients was the and from the organization’s a and on was The nurses an 4 A and test was administered before each of increased from in to in 2023. were to an project The results showed an improvement in and in from and improved to during the study showed that the improved and and The most of opportunity identified were treatment and and Hospital, an nurse catheter infection rates in to increased 3 care application identified an nursing of a for a for a and a of A clinical team was created to address these clinical team clinical nurse and infection prevention was to address the of The team in rounding and infection case reviews and departments to practice improvement included to and use including and unit was used to address catheter and The team with to catheter on with practice by for catheter in the patient The team to of and The catheter was as an management with and and catheter maintenance to catheter use and changes for catheter use were by the nurse and team catheter use from to catheter the patient hospital rates from to infections per catheter A of the is in The on of and evidence-based and clinical of Medical at resuscitation in a reviews code to with the American Heart Association and the of The aim for this quality improvement project was to increase compliance scores on the 5 that are within for 2 the most and after each multidisciplinary team in this reviews resuscitation events and to provide a to risk the from the the 2 that the most improvement included use and Process improvement measures were implemented using the included the of code events with and a for to the 5 risk that code is improvement included a that the and identified by the resuscitation team with members after the at and events. education, including a on the of the and was implemented with for resuscitation events the during year 2023. tool was used to compliance for and for compliance for each of the were reviewed were at the resuscitation including for and each of opportunity were and were to increase the of compliance for use was and for the of improvement measures, the compliance for was and for Hospital, Los Angeles, after is a multidisciplinary to the care of a patient to The of the Los a In March for and within of time were and The goal of the project was to and by at in each clinical nurse the as the tool to use in this A review was conducted with the of the of The and were at with nursing and leadership for and nurses, nursing leaders, and reviewed the and cases. The hospital team was and the in care for patients was as a goal of the unit and these included and The were to nursing and nursing the of was The hospital team conducted reviews of patients and weekly were with nursing and the unit In there were multidisciplinary during which members on the and to the of the the multidisciplinary the of of the and hospital team the team met and sustained the improved and time by than January through the showed significant from to of a project The results the to among in the from hospital to is a for the can is a high-risk and with nurses at the the nurse in patients as for patient for is The aim of this project was to of by a for in the of this project, of as and a the nurse to and a unit identified the for a was and a including unit team and to a for implement this project, was from and the and and the the was to at a education and the was in 5 of the for from unit nurses revealed of a for as of that a patient and quality One that and was the of a in the was time evidence-based practice increase patient is to hospital is to patient to Children’s is the of an which significant to patient In Children’s that rates in care unit the by for Patient patient an team of care was to the were developed through the included standardized for care for and analysis of events. education was through and a the implemented standardized and were introduced for of with patient and of during patient were the of 2 and after each were used to and determine to rates per patient from and to compliance identified and improving patient significant in rates with the the rates to by statistically the (P = and the (P = monitoring and a standardized evaluation of and to the of education, and a of and patient Medical Center, implement and a for patients to and maintenance care A of patients with of is for increased is a common care with failure rates are to of patients at a hospital to used in patients with is associated with increased and patient and reduced with this evidence-based practice a was implemented to care A was developed to and an patients were for before were to use of as a in a is the for increase and patient care of with revealed a significant in to the team and nurse for in fewer per on = = The directly members and with to The in improving test scores increased to a of Melissa for new nurses on in an care unit were and an implemented to critical care nurses during to and nurses a new nurse in this increased by from year to to nurses on during each A increase in nurses to with to a in to with nurse to and using the evidence-based for and to and patient the identified were that of patient and a tool to review was The developed a tool to nurses to to on and to patient The is each and to the nurse to use patient the of each the and and review the the patient on the goals and identified on the of with the are the for the and most of the increased from before the to after the of with the in for increased from before the to after the initiative was a by the to a of new nurses, resulted in a that patient and improved Children’s Hospital, practice using and that are in with is the in the goal is to and to the of an and whether nursing and 2021, was to a of to developed a of 4 that case and skills. The included of and which the in and of 3 and which the in and in of a and and which in of and using and and of which in the of in implementation, management skills, and the of the a was included scores and scores at 3 and and after the scores were on a of 1 to results in the and of the the most improvement in the of and and improved by and points on the from to 3 after the and were sustained at The to in a project increased by in a improved by 1 Implementation and the opportunity for to a study, using analysis to at by the a care new nurse rates were with the of with improving a new nurse was to on and The primary for is the which nurses with to and in are on education that most nurses The of the as to our this is by a are clinical nurse leaders, clinical and are of nursing new that for The the new nurses to and a through clinical time by the new nurses to and a to and The to this and during weekly the year of the our rate improved from 50% to the of continued the second with a rate of is with current as a of as these the new nurses in the new and are The of this the nursing and nurses to the of our Medical Center, Los Angeles, prevention and reduce rates in failure and transplant to risk and after a to including and and a to rate in patients with and of the patients an after team implemented to prevention in patients with with 5 education, a rounding and All focused on failure risk tool was developed and used to quality The tool the use of a assessed and including other and In with the unit nursing practice leadership rates at and a implemented were from the rounding tool the for of members of the care to a nurse nurse and education to patient the 4 rates were than patient July this unit a rounding to the specific risk developed a with 5 to the of each the of and The was implemented by March 2023. year resulted in a in to per patient the rate in the 4 in of Medical Center, quality improvement project implemented a for cardiac to the of patients in than after and the length of care unit with from the year a cardiac was In the study evaluated the of an on improving the of nurses longer times and after cardiac project was conducted with a of was created to patients cardiac The of time to was for each patient from the time of to the to the time of The length of was in A from the year that the was analyzed using and and with the intervention A test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant patients the and the were by
Responses to OPCs about “Timely dying in dementia: use patients' judgments and broaden the concept of suffering” submitted by Jenny T. van der Steen, Trijntje M. Scheeres-Feitsma, Petruschka Schaafsma; Norman L. Cantor; Paul T. Menzel; and Dena S. Davis By Stanley A. Terman and Karl E. Steinberg The protocol we recommend (detailed elsewhere2) strives to reduce the complexity of making end-of-life decisions by sharing the process among (A) the patient's judgments formed during advance care planning (ACP), (B) designated proxies/agents and others who are members of the Patient Decision Committee that the patient established during ACP, and (C) the physician/provider. The committee's main function is to decide when the patient has reached a condition that justifies a different, more clinically appropriate Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST), which the patient completed during a conversation with his/her ACP provider during ACP. End-of-life decisions may cause less emotional toll on members of the Patient Decision Committee because members share the burden of making these difficult existential decisions with other members. We disagree with the semantic argument that both Cantor3 and Menzel4 stated, paraphrased as: unacceptable deterioration may not cause suffering, so concentrating on only suffering misses much of what many people want to avoid in dementia. Yet we are willing to change our position if Cantor or Menzel presented examples of clinical conditions that cause “unacceptable deterioration” but do not cause suffering. Alternatively, they could conduct surveys or focus groups of clinical professionals or lay people that convincingly distinguish between unacceptable deterioration and suffering. We believe Cantor and Menzel have the burden of proof that these terms are not subsumed under suffering because our specific patient decision aid5 uses words and illustrations that generate conditional advance treatment decisions. Example: a man cannot or does not interact with anyone, even at his birthday party. Some observers may not appreciate his suffering; they describe his condition as “just sitting there.” Yet a broadened view of suffering would view his condition as extreme social isolation due to the ravages of advanced dementia that destroyed his brain's ability to communicate and resulted in the dying of all his relationships, which left him with severe existential suffering. If data from focus groups and surveys do not support subsuming types of deterioration and nonmedical terms under suffering, then Cantor and Menzel may have committed the logical fallacy of false exclusion,6 where one asserts (X) does not include (Y) when evidence convincingly demonstrates (X) does include (Y). Menzel asked:4 why would Cantor's published living will not be honored?7 Cantor requests stopping food and fluid if his irreversible mental deterioration causes the loss of ability to read newspapers and balance checkbooks. We judge this condition would cause only moderate suffering, which could be reduced to mild suffering, if family/friends shared the news, bookkeepers balanced checks, and Cantor enjoyed written material or other media at a lower literacy level. Even moderate suffering would not justify a provider writing an order to allow Cantor to die since it would violate two principles of medical ethics: it would provide no benefit and cause grave harm. Critics could judge the order as inconsistent with generally accepted medical care, immoral, and illegal—if viewed as euthanasia, which possibility Sulmasy raised based on Cantor's request for sedating medications if fasting causes discomfort.8 We contend our Perspective essay's broadened concept of suffering includes what Cantor and Menzel claim does not cause suffering, including “severe physical and cognitive degradation”; “altruism” (wanting to spare loved ones and society burdens of the disease); “intolerable indignity”; “withering”; “dwindling”; and a state that is “repugnant.” Physical deterioration causes suffering: (A) Immobility predisposes patients to developing painful bedsores. (B) Joint contractures due to flexors muscles overtaking extensors can lead to excruciating pain when patients are transferred between wheelchair and bed. (C) Muscle weakness and atrophy can lead to falling that causes pain from bruises and broken bones. (D) Swallowing difficulties can lead to malnutrition and dehydration that can lead to extreme fatigue and weakness and predispose to painful bedsores. Cognitive deterioration causes suffering: (A) Patients who become disoriented and confused may experience anxiety, fear, bewilderment, and paranoia. (B) Disruption of their life narrative can lead to their inability to function in their previous roles, which causes them to lose the essence of what gave their lives meaning. (C) Becoming increasingly dependent on others for help with activities of daily living (such as dressing, bathing, eating, and toileting), can lead to intense feelings of helplessness, desperation over lack of executive functioning, frustration in not fulfilling certain needs, and depression. (D) Changes in patients’ personality and behavior, especially agitation and aggression, may reflect their inner turmoil and loss of ability to communicate effectively. Patients may be dismayed at not being able to control their own behavior, including incontinence, which can cause extreme distress for them, their loved ones, and their caregivers. (E) Patients whose agitation and dangerous behavior are difficult to manage cause their loved ones more suffering that may include paying for more expensive care. The other extreme—withdrawn behavior—can lead to neglect, social isolation, and profound depression. Cantor asserted “the existing legal system” allows nonsuffering patients to die because courts honor precedent autonomy. But in practice, courts may not rule this way, and Cantor failed to cite any of several legal rulings that began with conflicts among family members, or between proxies/agents and providers or administrators, and which commonly force patients to endure unwanted prolonged suffering and dying. Cantor also failed to cite relevant statutes that allow physicians to decline to comply with living will requests. Example: California probate code allows providers to legally refuse to comply with patients’ requests (A) if their directive requests mercy killing, assisted suicide, or euthanasia (§4653), (B) if health care would be contrary to generally accepted health care standards (§4654), (C) if treatment would be medically ineffective (§4735), or (D) if the provider claims a conflict with personal conscience (§4734). If the above analysis and interpretation of Cantor's argument are correct, then Cantor may have committed the logical fallacy of selective inclusion of evidence (cherry-picking).9 Cantor's explanation for having confidence that the judicial system would favor his living will requests relied in part on his quoting statute: “Where a demented patient's prior expressed preferences are known, ‘the surrogate must make the medical choice that the patient … would have made.’” The authority of this statute is undeniable, but it seems irrelevant: surrogates are legally obligated to honor patients’ living wills, but judges are not. If this analysis and interpretation are correct, then Cantor may have substituted a strong argument (relevant for surrogates/agents) to support his weak argument (relevant for courts)—thereby committing the logical fallacy of ad verecundiam (fallacy of relevance of authority).10 Cantor used the term “deceptive” three times in referring to our proposal using severe suffering as the sole criterion for when a person would want to die. We wondered why Cantor repeatedly made such a pejorative allegation. Perhaps because (in his words) he dreads “a moral imperative to uphold the immediate well-being of the non-suffering patient” would prevent him and others from dying when they want. Yet our criterion is consistent with our government's adoption of parens patriae, which protects vulnerable individuals from harming themselves. So, despite the clarity of Cantor's living will, his “resolute” agent may fail in his/her attempt to persuade providers to implement Cantor's requests. We are concerned about Menzel's statement, that patients living with advanced dementia (PLADs) may progress to a stage where they “cannot subjectively experience suffering,” which in his opinion “is not real suffering.” Such a perspective fails to appreciate how difficult it is to determine if nonverbal, incapacitated patients are suffering. Furthermore, it is dangerous since it could lead to treating providers’ complacency and neglect as patients suffer—perhaps for years. Menzel argued that what gives advance directives their moral power is not prospective suffering but the right to retain the dignity of controlling their lives. We disagree, although dignity is important. Patients who complete advance directives are not just moral agents; they are morally obligated to protect from prolonged suffering, the vulnerable, nonverbal, future incapacitated patient living with dementia, whom they may someday become. We agree with Dena Davis's opinion: it is legal and makes sense to not administer food and nutrition to avoid prolonging the final stage of dying—even though assisted feeding seems like basic human care. We also agree that for some patients, this strategy will be implemented too late11—although stating “all [categories of suffering] come to pass long before the person reaches the stage where hand-feeding is necessary” is likely an incorrect overstatement. Yet dying can occur earlier if patients are at risk of contracting aspiration pneumonia, which causes more suffering than dying from medical dehydration (especially in nonverbal patients who cannot verbalize complaints). Withholding food and fluid is ethical since every person has the “claim right” to reduce suffering, which imposes correlative duties on others. We are currently exploring other ways to avoid being “too late.” Davis has long touted preemptive suicide as the only certain way to avoid prolonged dying in advanced dementia.12 But her informal surveys fail to prove that most people want to die soon after they receive a diagnosis of dementia. Here are two reasons, based on my attending one of her lectures: Davis's “subjects” were self-selected attendees at her lectures, and she failed to share adequate information to make an informed decision. Preemptive suicide can sacrifice years of reasonably good living and is a draconian “solution” that may not be necessary if the strategies added to ACP are effective in facilitating patients’ end-of-life goals. If so, the consequences of her recommendation could be tragic. Responses to Open Peer Commentaries for “Can an effective end-of-life intervention for advanced dementia be viewed as moral?” by Stanley A. Terman Response to William Lawrence Allen's OPC13 I provide two citations14, 15 to support “about 90% of PLADs have eating problems.” Allen harshly criticized the second, companion order, to this first order, “Cease assisted oral feeding and hydrating.” The purpose of the second order, “Always offer food and fluid by placing them in front of, and within reach of the PLAD,” is, in part, to help convince those in authority to facilitate acceptance of the first order, which may be PLADs’ last resort to avoid prolonged dying with suffering. (See other purposes, below.) Using the term “ruse” from my Perspectives essay, Allen argued that, if PLADs have already proved they cannot eat or drink independently, then such offering of food and fluid is a ruse whose purpose is to attempt to protect those involved from being indicted for euthanasia or elder abuse; and whose real purpose is to obscure the intent to hasten dying, which many consider immoral. My counterarguments are based on two widely accepted principles. The Principle of Proportionality16, 17 states: if the burden and harms of continuing an intervention are disproportionate to its potential benefits, then, even if the intervention is life-sustaining, it can be morally acceptable to discontinue it. The Principle of Double Effect18 permits actions such as physician orders whose intent is good (such as to reduce suffering), even if there is a possible, foreseeable, bad side effect (such as death). Allen argued, “If the vast majority of patients cannot feed themselves … always placing food and fluids within reach is futile” and “irrelevant and unnecessary.” If my interpretation and analysis are correct, then Allen may have committed the logical fallacy of extrapolation—from “vast majority” to 100%. While appropriate for many decisions, it is morally inappropriate if the life of a human being is at stake. Example: even if only 1 or 2 of 100 PLADs can resume independent eating and drinking, they deserve a revised treatment plan rather than being allowed to die. (This is another purpose of the second order.) Allen also contended, “Documentation of a dementia patient's disinterest in eating or drinking should be adequate, without ‘proving’ it by constant placement of food and drink in reach.” But disinterest in eating and drinking is not why PLADs want to cease assisted feeding. Their motivation is to avoid prolonged, irreversible, severe suffering. Allen stated, “Every patient has the ethical and legal right” “to shorten suffering … by ceasing assisted feeding and drinking.” I agree—provided patients had capacity during ACP, when they voluntarily made a clear and convincing request after their provider shared sufficient information for them to give their informed consent. Allen states he relies on competent, trained professionals to determine the etiology and reversibility of a PLAD's not eating—instead of placing food and fluid within the patient's reach, which he claims is neither effective as a defense against a charge of euthanasia nor a way to determine the etiology of not eating. Here, Allen may be assuming facts not in evidence. I am not aware of any data that support the ability of “trained, competent professionals” to determine with 100% accuracy, which patients can, and which cannot, regain their ability to independently eat and drink—before beginning medical dehydration. I do not share Allen's confidence in “competent trained professionals'” ability to determine the cause(s) of not eating. Most common is dementia-caused brain damage that led either to losing their ability to recognize items as food and fluid (agnosia) or to losing their ability to coordinate moving their hands to put food and fluid in her mouth (dyspraxia). But Allen failed to acknowledge the Perspective essay's list of clinical situations that could—albeit with an unknown but likely small percentage of patients—lead to a reversible loss of ability to eat and drink. Medical dehydration may (A) increase hunger that overcomes depression, apathy, or voluntarily waiting for caregivers’ assistance with feeding as their last vestige of social interaction; (B) discontinue medications that had been causing nausea or other GI side effects; and (C) shrink a comorbid brain tumor by reducing excess cerebral fluid. Allen claimed proxies and care providers are “excused from legal liability” if their actions are based on advance directives. I asked healthcare law and bioethics professor Thaddeus Pope for his opinion on this point. He wrote: “The consent of the deceased does not excuse what is otherwise a crime” and consent is not always a defense, which is “the very nature of the prohibition on assisted suicide” in every state. Regarding clinician's “prima facie duty to feed, the patient can waive [this] right,” but “there is some uncertainty whether this is assisting a ‘suicide’ in some states.” Pope therefore opined there is “risk and uncertainty in many jurisdictions.” Most important is this opinion with which we agree: providers are not exempt from legal liability if they follow illegal requests in directives, including euthanasia. Here are examples of why it is prudent to place food and fluid within the patient's reach: (A) it minimizes providers’ risk of being accused of euthanasia; (B) it makes it easier for proxies/agents to persuade providers to implement the order, “Cease assisted feeding”; (C) it can serve as an effective defense, if a provider is accused of a crime; and, (D) it may save the lives of a few patients, which makes it moral to “waste” food three or four times a day for the vast majority of patients (until they fall asleep) to give a small minority of patients the opportunity to survive. The last point is based on this fundamental belief: the life of every human being is sacred/precious. If my interpretation and analysis are correct, Allen may have committed the petitio principii fallacy (“begging the question”) that uses the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in the premise. To Allen's argument can be reduced PLADs who have the ability to cannot resume this function it is not necessary to prove that they cannot resume this function Allen healthcare professionals and their to comply with the order, “Cease assisted is the for patients to their goals. While such cannot Response to the of Trijntje M. Scheeres-Feitsma, Petruschka Jenny T. van der Steen, and van I agree with these that whether assisted feeding is or to the moral Their main argument is based on this incorrect my is that an advance directive can the future assisted my Perspective to this a of moral persuade those who otherwise the conditional order, “Cease assisted My other published and recommend several strategies to directives, to common which of is based on this by advance directives “cannot very and end-of-life for people with dementia and a and are the the are the of that people believe are right and a good are from or which some they are to or Yet both can change and neither has both types of agree on patients’ claim right to be allowed to die if their severe suffering cannot be since this is and patients’ I agree it is difficult for patients with dementia to their future and care I have revised a patient decision that has become an that a directive for dementia other includes and words written at the of to help dementia patients their for using cognitive to I agree that people living with dementia can be and experience of The companion Perspectives an in which a patient cannot recognize but can their that request ceasing assisted feeding as soon as the patient cannot recognize are since their requests could lead to Regarding the of with and a or a change of patients ACP must make a is to others to follow their the of which is to their ability to change their treatment preferences after they lose The other is to 100% to their proxies/agents by them to make decisions on their The of 100% is a strategy to persuade providers to and placing their in the of surrogates whose substituted is The protocol from family members, and as patients' directives. providers experience the and of the moral of whether to cease feeding at three times a could be by this PLADs have reached a condition that during ACP that they would cause irreversible, severe suffering and they have the right to I agree with using a than patients’ and from others to patients’ end-of-life goals. patients in the I recommend using to increase the clarity of orders and reduce conflicts their is just The protocol having a between providers and patients during ACP have the potential to reduce what treatment the patient and prevent such as the whose treating a legal against both and
BACKGROUND: Terminally, illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, dementia, and advanced heart disease will require special supportive and palliative care, although a few numbers of these patients are provided with these services. The aim of the present study was to perform a comparative study of supportive-palliative care provision in selected countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This research was a descriptive comparative study that its research population was the frameworks of palliative and supportive care provision in Egypt, Turkey, America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and China. These frameworks were compared across six dimensions of service receivers, financing, providers, service provider centers, type of services provided, and training. Data collection tool has included the checklist and information sources, documents, evidence, articles, books, and journals collected through the Internet and organizations related to the health information of selected countries and by the library search. Data were investigated and analyzed using the data collection tool and checklists. FINDINGS: The findings showed that the developed countries having decentralized trusteeship structure had a more favorable status in palliative and supportive care provision. The type of services provided was a combination of mental, psychological, social, spiritual, financial, and physical and communication services. Provider centers included hospital, the elderly, and cancer and charity centers. CONCLUSION: Regarding the investigation and recognition of the status of supportive-palliative care provision, it was observed that the provision of these services was a concern of the selected countries, but they did not have a defined model or pattern to provide these services. Therefore, it is suggested that each country takes a step to redesign and define frameworks and structures in the evolution of supportive-palliative cares in accordance with the particular conditions, indigenous culture, religion, and other effective cases of that country and pays special attention to the role and position of supportive-palliative cares.
Ștefana Maria Moisă, Andrada Pârvu, Beatrice Gabriela Ioan
Background: Palliative care, seen as a fundamental human right, gains increasingly more importance worldwide, but the distribution of this kind of facilities is unequal. Aim: In this paper authors compare the palliative care systems of Romania and Lithuania, post-communist countries, characterized by shifting from a state healthcare system to a decentralized one, based on health insurances. Design: We have performed a desk research in Romanian and English languages, analyzing publications referring to this topic in the two countries. Data sources: Vilnius University Database and Google search engine using as keywords, Lithuania(n) palliative care", respectively "Romania(n) palliative care", published between 1975 and 2019. Eligibility criteria: articles published between the years mentioned above in English or Romanian languages. Results: In Romania, the palliative care network is better structured, including both hospital care and home care, for adults and children. Still, opioid consumption in Lithuania is higher than in Romania because of a more flexible prescribing legislation. In Romania, palliative care is a recognized as a medical sub-speciality, while in Lithuania no preoccupations exist in this regard. Conclusions: In both countries state budget funds allocation lacks transparency, and funds allocated for palliative care are insufficient. During the last 20 years Romania has undertaken bigger steps in palliative care than Lithuania, especially due to the effort of a few dedicated professionals. Still, the sub-financing of the two systems and the limited number of professionals limit the system efficiency.
Critical care is one of the most ethically complex health care specialties. Nurses working in this highly intense setting face additional stressors of high-tech interventions, resource scarcity, and increased workloads. Evidence from the United Kingdom and the United States suggests that these stressors are affecting patient safety and mortality, and nurses are feeling dissatisfied with their job and are burning out.1–4 Although we are able to keep patients alive longer, a growing body of research suggests that in many cases the life-sustaining treatments carried out in critical care settings are perceived by health care professionals to conflict with the patient’s best interests, creating moral distress among health care professionals.5,6 Nurses are often left out of decision-making processes, yet they are responsible for enacting the decisions made. This situation, according to Liaschenko,7 reduces nurses to artificial persons—persons who speak or act for others but whose priorities and concerns are subordinate to others. To navigate this complex environment, nurses need to be taught how to recognize and respond to a range of challenging ethical situations.Whereas ethics training for nurses can vary widely depending on the institution (and country), in this article we explore a common approach to clinical ethics education used in the United Kingdom. We do so because this method promotes a particular approach to understanding and framing ethical issues that arguably engenders misunderstanding about expected solutions, as we will discuss. Toby’s case, describing an ethical issue arising in critical care, is used to exemplify this argument and is referred to throughout the article to illustrate key points.Ethics education in nursing tends to be practical: the focus is on the identification of challenging ethical situations and developing and defending a resolution. Our experience of clinical ethics education (in the United Kingdom) reflects this focus; the aim is to enable the student and/or clinician to use ethical theory to identify and understand the ethical issues, begin to resolve the issues, and find acceptable solutions. In the process, students develop as competent moral agents and effective advocates. The development of the moral agent tends to be described in terms of developing an appropriate character, enabling students and/or clinicians to challenge the “silent curriculum” that might habituate clinicians into unethical practice. Rhodes and Cohen8(p50) argue thatA common pedagogic approach is to teach some theory (eg, consequentialist, deontological, virtue, principlist approaches) and then encourage students and clinicians to identify cases from their own practice, apply their theoretical knowledge, and develop their practical ethical skills through reflection. As described by Roff and Preece,9(p487)For students, assessment of this style of learning typically will comprise some form of written case study (given to them or drawn from their own experience) in which students identify the key ethical issues drawing on theory and then show, in a limited number of words, how they would resolve the case—justifying their resolution with reference to ethical theory. Our assumption is that how clinical students, excepting those who go on to specialist study in ethics, are taught about ethics will frame their approach to ethical deliberation throughout their clinical careers.Many practicing clinicians are encouraged to document discussions of ethical issues, agreed solutions, and supporting reasons in their clinical notes—something that the models of assessment they encountered as students seem to have prepared them for. Whereas there are advantages to this approach, one risk is that this strategy encourages students and clinicians to equate their development as competent moral agents with their ability to reduce a complex ethical problem to a series of concisely articulated ethical issues and tidy, theoretically neat, solutions—leading to a single satisfactory solution.The problem with this model in clinical ethics education (both before and after certification) is that it risks encouraging a simplistic understanding of ethical analysis and offers little scope to explore complexity and uncertainty. This approach does not prepare students for dealing with real-life ethical problems; instead, it primes students to believe that identifying and resolving an ethical issue should be easy and encourages the belief that (1) if they cannot articulate and resolve a problem concisely and neatly, then they are doing something wrong and may lack the apposite moral character; and (2) there is a correct resolution that, if found, ought to be satisfying. Promoting these beliefs has substantial problems, which we will discuss briefly.Ethical reflection permeates everyday clinical practice; for example, deciding whether to follow protocol and reposition a patient now or delay for half an hour to take a much-needed lunch break requires such reflection. A person might overlook the ethical nature of this sort of decision because no complex ethical reflection is required. The challenge lies in finding the motivation to do the right thing—to put one’s hunger aside for a few more minutes and reposition the patient. This sort of ethical issue can be articulated and resolved neatly and concisely because it is a simple case; although we might want to do one thing, we clearly ought to do another.The everyday nature of ethics—the microethics10 woven into the fabric of all our personal and professional interactions—is important and should not be ignored; however, we want to focus on more challenging and complex situations involving dilemmas, restricted options, or disagreement (sometimes referred to as conflicts) among moral agents that cannot be articulated or resolved simply or concisely.A dilemma occurs when one must choose between 2 mutually incompatible and similarly weighted obligations (eg, a perceived obligation to save and preserve Toby’s life vs a perceived obligation to minimize his suffering when the only way to do so is not compatible with preserving life).A restricted option problem occurs when one feels there is a right course of action, but for some reason that course of action is not available and is a nonoption. Thus, the range of options left to choose from are less desirable, and none seem morally optimal (eg, the health care team ideally would like to offer Toby a heart transplant but due to his necrotic lung he is not eligible).A disagreement problem occurs when 2 or more agents who have a stake in the decision disagree over the right course of action, and action cannot be taken until a resolution is found. In Toby’s case, the medical team does not want to offer VV-ECMO if he shows signs of deteriorating, but wants to continue other life-sustaining treatments such as continued invasive ventilation; the nursing team believes that they are prolonging Toby’s inevitable death, contributing to his continued suffering, and believes that all life-sustaining treatments are futile; whereas Jenna has requested VV-ECMO and wants to continue all life-sustaining treatments.These kinds of decisions are never simple, nor can their ethical complexity be summarized or resolved in a short piece of written work or by rote ethical analysis. By definition, a challenging ethical issue is complex and requires a great deal of thought and analysis. To assess competency as a moral agent and/or moral character based on a student’s or clinician’s ability to reduce and articulate a response in a short written assignment or verbal analysis sends the wrong message and communicates unrealistic success criteria.Most ethics educators likely are aware of this complexity and are aware that not all clinical ethics education follows this model. However, we are less sure that students or clinicians are aware of the shortcoming of this model; thus, their own measure of success in dealing with ethical issues becomes associated with a concise and relatively sanitized written summary or analysis that demonstrates understanding and clear resolution, which seems unrealistic. Furthermore, as clinical curricula become more crowded and resources become increasingly competitive, pressure increases to reduce ethics assessments to simple “pass or fail” and multiple-choice and short-answer questions to assess ethics competency. This pressure makes it important to reflect on the problems associated with this kind of assessment and to consolidate counterarguments so that such simple assessments might be resisted.Moral dilemmas, restricted options, and disagreement features include the following: (1) perhaps not having a clearly discernible correct course of action, and (2) even if a course of action is identified and morally preferable, moral residue may still be felt after taking the preferable path. These 2 points can be seen in Toby’s case because it illustrates a moral reason to withdraw treatment and a moral reason to continue treatment. What ought to be done for Toby is not clear, and no theoretical approach provides an answer. Arguments for either course of action could be made from any theoretical perspective—many courses of action could be argued as ethically defensible and reasonable. In a situation like Toby’s, no solution is unequivocally correct, and it seems unlikely that we can select a course of action without also feeling we have done something wrong.The term moral residue often is used to refer, in the context of moral distress, to the build-up of negative emotions that occurs after we allow ourselves to be morally compromised. Webster and Baylis11(p208) characterize moral residue asEpstein and Hamric12 describe moral residue as the painful feeling that remains after a morally distressing event that, unless satisfactorily resolved, builds up over time and amplifies negative responses to subsequent morally distressing events, creating a “moral residue crescendo.” Moral residue arises in these types of arguments when the agent feels a wrong has been done; thus, negative feelings are associated with a perceived moral failure and the logically necessary assumption that moral success was possible.We, however, will be using the term moral residue as it was used originally: to refer to the lingering feeling of having done wrong even when one has made a decision that feels right.13,14 This concept was used to argue for the existence of genuine moral dilemma—the special case of moral conflict in which an agent recognizes that (1) moral reason can be used to perform 2 or more actions, (2) not all actions can be performed, and (3) there is no reason to choose one action over another. In such a situation, avoiding moral failure seems impossible because by choosing one course of correct action we fail to perform another correct course of action.The term unavoidable moral failure15 derives from the fact that we must choose between 2 conflicting moral requirements, violating one for the sake of the other. The presence of moral residue after having made a moral decision could be evidence that the agent faced a genuine moral dilemma. Furthermore, this moral residue is an appropriate response to this situation.In Toby’s case, the health care team could feel justified making the decision to withdraw ECMO altogether and yet feel they have wronged Toby and his wife, especially if the decision results in Toby’s death. A wrong has been done, even though the wrong occurred during the process of doing something right. The same could be said of the decision to continue to treat Toby. The decision is ethically defensible and arguably correct, yet in making the decision to continue treatment a wrong seems to have been done because of the real possibility that it might only prolong Toby’s dying process and associated suffering.Debate continues over whether moral residue can be used as proof of the existence of genuine moral dilemmas. One might argue that it is nonsensical to suggest that someone can do wrong while doing right, since choosing option A over option B means that one has decided that A is the right course of action; thus, by definition, all other actions would be wrong.Feeling guilt after having made such a decision could be thought of as irrational.15 Tessman,15 however, argues that labeling this guilt irrational assumes that all perceived wrongs can be compensated for by having done right overall. This viewpoint requires a hyperrational agent who can endorse a conception of “the right” such that the perception of having done right renders any contributing action or consequence similarly “right,” thereby avoiding feeling any regret or loss because of unfulfilled values.People rarely, however, display that kind of rationality. Tessman15 argues that because we often encounter impossible, nonnegotiable moral requirements, we ought to accept that we will unavoidably experience moral failure. In a dilemmatic situation, ethically sensitive people will always be cognizant that in choosing one moral requirement they have failed to perform another. Even when a decision is made that is inclusive, fair, and considered, rarely can a person be certain that the decision was correct and may continue to have feelings of doubt or regret. Doubt is a constant feature of ethical decision making in complex cases. In fact, certainty in the face of ethical complexity may suggest a failure to understand that complexity and may indicate a lack of moral character.We need not resolve the debate about moral failure to learn something important from it. There are 3 key learning points that we can take away that should inform approaches to teaching and learning about clinical ethics: (1) resolution, (2) compromise, and (3) incorporation of concepts.Feelings of guilt, remorse, or regret may be unavoidable features of being in an ethically complex situation. Even when we feel we have done the right thing we still might have negative feelings about our decision; thus, finding an ethical resolution is not the same as finding personal satisfaction or personal resolution.Arriving at a solution that one is completely happy with is not a marker of ethical success or competency. Rather, accepting these feelings as part of being a moral agent may mitigate the feelings that are associated with the accumulation of negative emotions and moral distress. Whereas one may feel guilt or regret because of unavoidable moral failure, unless that person is culpable, he or she is not blameworthy.15 For example, culpability might flow from having failed to deliberate properly, listen to all relevant voices, or create spaces for respectful discussion.There are, then, 2 kinds of moral failure: culpable and nonculpable. Culpable moral failure might arise when one has reached a decision that one regrets or feels guilty about due to not deliberating properly. Moral residue, as defined in this article, is always non-culpable because moral residue follows from having engaged in proper deliberation but nonetheless feeling one has done wrong.When faced with having to choose a course of action in response to a complex and uncertain ethical problem, sometimes the only way to move forward may be to find principled (ie, integrity-preserving) compromise. As Huxtable16(p140,141) argues,Thus, even though the clinical team feels they should withdraw care from Toby, they might nonetheless try other options to enable them to meet their obligations of beneficence to his wife. Such a compromise may not represent a perfect solution, but may be the best arrangement that can be achieved; it might be too much to expect to find a perfect solution to such a complex problem.The problem with compromise, however, is that the concept often is used and understood in a pejorative sense; for example, when Webster and Baylis talk about moral residue occurring after allowing oneself to be “compromised.”11 Although compromise may not always be desirable, it may sometimes be necessary. According to Benjamin,17 compromise makes the “best of a bad situation.” Ives18(p310) also argues thatA potential problem arises from attempting to combine compromise with the goal of coherence. Both might focus on the value of the process of deliberation over the outcome such that (1) the compromise position might not matter as long as a compromise is achieved and all stakeholders are willing to sign up to the compromise, and/or (2) that knowledge of having undertaken a rigorous process of ethical deliberation might, in part or in total, alleviate feelings of moral residue, because participants in the decision can have confidence that they have done the best they could.We would be wary of a focus on process as a justification for outcome. Whereas process is important for many reasons, such as transparency, agency, and accountability, it is difficult to see how the process of ethical deliberation and agreement can confer justification for the decision. Huxtable’s endorsement of compromise is not just a call for decision makers to reach agreement16; the plea is for “principled compromise,” wherein agents are required to make compromises that can be justified by principles external to the process of compromise itself (ie, the compromise position is not legitimate just because it is agreed to).A person who is not part of a robust process of deliberation and has not experienced moral residue may have misplaced faith in the justificatory power of process. Moral residue would survive any feeling that the decision is justified, whether by process or principle. If, conversely, one is unsatisfied with the process, one is unlikely to feel the decision was correct, and so the conditions for moral residue would not have been met. For these reasons, we are wary of drawing the conclusion that a focus on robust processes might be a panacea. Although ethics education can and should facilitate learning about how ethical deliberation can occur, too much emphasis on process runs the risk of leading to empty proceduralism, wherein the process of deliberation comes to replace justification.However, process still has significant value, which is derived from being able to distinguish culpable moral failure (about which we ought to feel bad) and nonculpable moral failure (about which we have no need to berate ourselves). Having confidence in a robust process can help guide us in determining whether we are experiencing nonculpable moral residue or culpable guilt.Clinical ethics educators should incorporate the concepts of moral failure and moral residue into teaching and learning—not to encourage indifferent or immoral behavior, but to better prepare clinicians for the realities of the experience of having to make difficult ethical decisions in the face of the complex and challenging ethical situations and to better understand what a solution might look like.Real-life ethical decision making does not mimic the sanitized assessments clinicians are often required to undertake in a teaching environment, and that expectations of what success might look like need to be adjusted to something more realistic.As illustrated by Toby’s case, a complex, challenging clinical situation will often have multiple justifiable solutions; it is unlikely that any single solution will feel completely satisfactory. Whatever the outcome, the participants would likely experience some form of moral residue. Assuming that decision makers have deliberated properly and arrived at a solution they believe to be correct, they may still feel they have done something wrong. Health care clinicians need to understand that this feeling is moral residue, which is an unavoidable consequence of trying to manage the often-impossible demands of morality within critical care rather than a culpable moral failure. Moral residue is a failure to reconcile the irreconcilable and not a failure of moral character or a sign that one is an moral believe that clinical ethics education should prepare nurses and other clinicians for the experience of moral residue and such education should use this concept to distinguish between moral that are culpable and nonculpable. This learning strategy should better enable nurses and other clinicians to and respond to negative feelings that after they have made a decision in an ethically challenging such a clinicians can better manage expectations about what an acceptable ethical solution might look and feel
Setting the context The constitution of Finland stipulates that society must guarantee adequate social, health and medical services for each of its 5.3 million inhabitants, and promote the health of the population. Due to decentralized governance, responsibility for financing long-term care for older people rests heavily on the shoulders of 336 relatively independent local authorities (municipalities), as does the delivery of long-term care services. Obliged by law to provide long-term care services for older dependent people, these municipalities are free either to provide services themselves or to purchase them from various for-profit or not-for-profit providers. Historically, municipalities have tended to rely on providing their own services. According to the Statistical Yearbook on Social Welfare and Healthcare (National Institute for Health and Welfare, 2010), 87 per cent of all long-term care days in residential facilities were produced in public facilities, 10 per cent in not-for-profit private facilities and only 3 per cent in for-profit private facilities. In contrast, when it comes to sheltered housing for older people, officially known as ‘service houses’ or ‘sheltered housing’, only 42 per cent of long-term care days were furnished by public providers while the private sector provided 32 per cent of care days in not-for-profit facilities and 26 per cent in for-profit facilities. Chronic care hospitals, known as ‘health centres’, are predominantly public (95 per cent). Recent statistics are not available for home care. In all these types of facilities municipalities are responsible for monitoring care but they are aided in this task by other entities. The National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (known as Valvira), supervised by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, undertakes a national supervisory role, together with six Regional State Administrative Agencies (AVI).
Carlos Centeno, S. Hernansanz, Luis Alberto Flores, Álvaro Sanz Rubiales · 5 authors
Abstract This chapter offers an in-depth look at health politics and the tax-financed, universal health system in Spain. It traces the development of the Spanish healthcare system, focusing in particular on its double transition in the 1980s and 1990s from a centralized social insurance system, mostly funded through workers’ and employers’ contributions, to a decentralized universal model financed by general taxation. The new national health system aimed at covering all residents and transferred healthcare competences to the regions, i.e. the seventeen Autonomous Communities, a process completed in 2001. Key issues include rationalization, harmonization, and territorial equity-building of the decentralized healthcare system; efficiency improvement through the introduction of private management elements; and cost containment to bolster the system’s financial sustainability in the context of growing demand and scarce resources. As the chapter argues, these challenges along with the remarkable changes in the political party system have increased the political salience of healthcare in public debate in the 2010s, but the prospects for developing consensual healthcare policies have worsened, such that structural problems are likely to persist.
Abstract Before describing the model of palliative care in Spain, it is necessary to give a brief description of the country’s current health care model. Our country has approximately 40 million inhabitants. The public health system offers universal access and is publicly financed. In accordance with the constitutional principle of territorial decentralization in the healthcare field, public health services and functions have been transferred from central government to 7 of the 17 Autonomous Regions, affecting some 62% of the country’s population.