Meredith Stark

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults: a brief review and ethical considerations for nonspecialist health providers and hospitalists.

Given the pace, distribution, and uptake of technological innovation, patients experiencing respiratory failure, heart failure, or cardiac arrest are, with greater frequency, being treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Although most hospitalists will not be responsible for ordering or managing ECMO, in-hospital healthcare providers continue to be a vital source of patient referral and, accordingly, need to understand the rudiments of these technologies so as to co-manage patients, counsel families, and help ensure that the provision of ECMO is consistent with patient preferences and appropriate goals of care. In an effort to prepare hospitalists for these clinical responsibilities, we review the history and technology behind modern-day ECMO, including venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Building upon that foundation, we further highlight special ethical considerations that may arise in VA-ECMO, and present an ethically grounded approach to the initiation, continuation, and discontinuation of treatment.

The Ethical Imperative to Think about Thinking

While the medical ethics literature has well explored the harm to patients, families, and the integrity of the profession in failing to disclose medical errors once they occur, less often addressed are the moral and professional obligations to take all available steps to prevent errors and harm in the first instance. As an expanding body of scholarship further elucidates the causes of medical error, including the considerable extent to which medical errors, particularly in diagnostics, may be attributable to cognitive sources, insufficient progress in systematically evaluating and implementing suggested strategies for improving critical thinking skills and medical judgment is of mounting concern. Continued failure to address pervasive thinking errors in medical decisionmaking imperils patient safety and professionalism, as well as beneficence and nonmaleficence, fairness and justice. We maintain that self-reflective and metacognitive refinement of critical thinking should not be construed as optional but rather should be considered an integral part of medical education, a codified tenet of professionalism, and by extension, a moral and professional duty.

What's Not Being Shared in Shared Decision-Making?

Whats not to like about shared decision-making? These programs employ specially crafted decision aids to educate patients about their treatment options and then merge the newly informed patient preferences, both general and treatment-specific, with guidance from physicians to optimize medical decisions. Sounds great, right? Even better, recent evidence indicates that shared decision-making programs may also help bend the proverbial cost curve by reducing the use of medical interventions that patients, now properly educated about their options, often say they do not want. The notion that programs to inform and elicit patient choice might also help to align health care delivery with patient preferences for less invasive and therefore less costly treatment options seems the rarest of mutual wins in health care, in which what is best for the individual might also benefit the whole. Yet there has been scant attention to how the goals of patient care and cost-containment, and perhaps even profitability, coincide or conflict.