Niven and Scott (2003): Sixteen years of hindsight

This paper revisits a 2003 publication in Nursing Philosophy: The need for accurate perception and informed judgement in determining the appropriate use of the nursing resource: hearing the patient's voice. The author suggests that the basic ideas and focus of this 16‐year‐old paper are still topical and relevant in considerations of nursing care. However, it is also suggested that greater attention to the importance of the nurse–patient relationship in considerations of resource allocation, and potential rationing of nursing care, would have strengthened the original paper.     

The extent of biopsy involvement as an independent predictor of extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in low risk prostate cancer: implications for treatment selection

PURPOSE: We identify predictors of extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins in patients with low risk prostate cancer (prostate specific antigen [PSA] 10 ng./ml. or less, biopsy Gleason score 7 or less and clinical stage T1c-2b). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August 1997 to January 1999, 143 previously untreated patients underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. A total of 62 patients were low risk, with PSA 10 ng./ml. or less, biopsy Gleason score 7 or less and clinical stage T1c-2b, and had sextant biopsy with separate pathological evaluation of each sextant cores. PSA, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score, average percentage of cancer in the entire biopsy specimen, maximum percentage of cancer on the most involved core, number of cores involved and bilaterality were evaluated for association with extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement and positive surgical margins. RESULTS: Of the 62 patients 13 (21%) had extraprostatic extension, 6 (10%) seminal vesicle involvement and 20 (32%) positive surgical margins. Average percentage greater than 10% and maximum percentage greater than 25% were associated with extraprostatic extension (p = 0.01 and 0.004, respectively). Average percentage greater than 10%, maximum percentage greater than 25%, more than 2 cores involved and bilaterality were associated with positive surgical margins (p = 0.007, 0.01, 0.002 and 0.03, respectively). On multivariate analysis maximum percentage remained the only independent predictor of extraprostatic extension (p = 0.03), and the number of cores involved remained an independent predictor of positive surgical margins (p = 0.01). Biopsy Gleason score, PSA and clinical stage did not correlate with extraprostatic extension or positive surgical margins in this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: In low risk prostate cancer the extent of biopsy involvement significantly correlates with the risk of extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins. Biopsy information should be considered when selecting and modifying treatment modalities.     

Omissions of Care in Nursing Homes: A Uniform Definition for Research and Quality Improvement

Omission of care in US nursing homes can lead to increased risk for harm or adverse outcomes, decreased quality of life for residents, and increased healthcare expenditures. However, scholars and policymakers in long-term care have taken varying approaches to defining omissions of care, which makes efforts to prevent them challenging. Subject matter experts and a broad range of nursing home stakeholders participated in iterative rounds of engagement to identify key concepts and aspects of omissions of care and develop a consensus-based definition that is clear, meaningful, and actionable for nursing homes. The resulting definition is “Omissions of care in nursing homes encompass situations when care—either clinical or nonclinical—is not provided for a resident and results in additional monitoring or intervention or increases the risk of an undesirable or adverse physical, emotional, or psychosocial outcome for the resident.” This concise definition is grounded in goal-concordant, resident-centered care, and can be used for a variety quality improvement purposes and for research.     

MISSED CARE phenomenon on neonatal intensive CARE unit (NICU)

AimTo evaluate missed nursing care (MNC) phenomenon on Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) infants.DesignA cross-sectional study.MethodsA sample of 113 eligible Registered Nurses (RNs) and Registered Midwives (RMs) were prospectively recruited at the Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs). The study uses a self -designed authors questionnaire (ADQ) and the Neonatal Extent of Work Rationing Instrument (NEWRI).ResultsMNC evidence was the most significant in the parental support and teaching subscales (M = 2.21, SD = 0.87) and the least in life support and discharge planning (M = 1.19, SD = 0.9). MNC in the care coordination and discharge planning subscales significantly (p < 0.038) depends on the belief that a nurse's family issues affect the quality of their work. MNC in the life support and technology-oriented nursing care domain (p < 0.033) significantly depends on the belief that the ward manager is a good manager and leader.     

Just caring: Assessing the ethical and economic costs of personalized medicine

Personalized medicine has been touted as a revolutionary form of cancer care. It has been portrayed as precision medicine, targeting with deadly accuracy cancer cells and sparing patients the debilitating broad-spectrum side effects of more traditional forms of cancer therapy. But personalized medicine still has its costs to patients and society, both moral and economic costs. How to recognize and address those issues will be the focus of this essay. We start with these questions: Does everyone faced with cancer have a moral right to the most effective cancer care available, no matter what the cost, no matter whether a particular individual has the personal ability to pay for that care or not? Or are there limits to the cancer care that anyone has a right to at social expense? If so, what are those limits and how are those limits to be determined? Are those limits a matter of both morality and economics? I will answer this last question in the affirmative. This is what I refer to as the “Just Caring” problem in health care.     

To accept,or not to accept,that is the question: citizen reactions to rationing

Background The publicly financed health service in Sweden has come under increasing pressure, forcing policy makers to consider restrictions. Objective To describe different perceptions of rationing, in particular, what citizens themselves believe influences their acceptance of having to stand aside for others in a public health service. Design Qualitative interviews, analysed by phenomenography, describing perceptions by different categories. Setting and participants Purposeful sample of 14 Swedish citizens, based on demographic criteria and attitudes towards allocation in health care. Results Participants expressed high awareness of limitations in public resources and the necessity of rationing. Acceptance of rationing could increase or decrease, depending on one’s (i) awareness that healthcare resources are limited, (ii) endorsement of universal health care, (iii) knowledge and acceptance of the principles guiding rationing and (iv) knowledge about alternatives to public health services. Conclusions This study suggests that decision makers should be more explicit in describing the dilemma of resource limitations in a publicly funded healthcare system. Openness enables citizens to gain the insight to make informed decisions, i.e. to use public services or to ‘opt out’ of the public sector solution if they consider rationing decisions unacceptable.     

Rationing Limited Healthcare Resources in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond: Ethical Considerations Regarding Older Adults

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to impact older adults disproportionately with respect to serious consequences ranging from severe illness and hospitalization to increased mortality risk. Concurrently, concerns about potential shortages of healthcare professionals and health supplies to address these issues have focused attention on how these resources are ultimately allocated and used. Some strategies, for example, misguidedly use age as an arbitrary criterion that disfavors older adults in resource allocation decisions. This is a companion article to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) position statement, “Resource Allocation Strategies and Age-Related Considerations in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.” It is intended to inform stakeholders including hospitals, health systems, and policymakers about ethical considerations that should be considered when developing strategies for allocation of scarce resources during an emergency involving older adults. This review presents the legal and ethical background for the position statement and discusses these issues that informed the development of the AGS positions: (1) age as a determining factor, (2) age as a tiebreaker, (3) criteria with a differential impact on older adults, (4) individual choices and advance directives, (5) racial/ethnic disparities and resource allocation, and (6) scoring systems and their impact on older adults. It also considers the role of advance directives as expressions of individual preferences in pandemics. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1143–1149, 2020.     

Viewpoints among experts and the public in the Netherlands on including a lifestyle criterion in the healthcare priority setting

ContextIt remains unclear whether there would be societal support for a lifestyle criterion for the healthcare priority setting. This study examines the viewpoints of experts in healthcare and the public regarding support for a lifestyle‐related decision criterion, relative to support for the currently applied criteria, in the healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands.MethodsWe conducted a Q methodology study in samples of experts in healthcare (n = 37) and the public (n = 44). Participants (total sample N = 81) ranked 34 statements that reflected currently applied decision criteria as well as a lifestyle criterion for setting priorities in healthcare. The ranking data were subjected to principal component analysis, followed by oblimin rotation, to identify clusters of participants with similar viewpoints.FindingsWe identified four viewpoints. Participants with Viewpoint 1 believe that treatments that have been proven to be effective should be reimbursed. Those with Viewpoint 2 believe that life is precious and every effort should be made to save a life, even when treatment still results in a very poor state of health. Those with Viewpoint 3 accept government intervention in unhealthy lifestyles and believe that individual responsibility should be taken into account in reimbursement decisions. Participants with Viewpoint 4 attribute importance to the cost‐effectiveness of treatments; however, when priorities have to be set, treatment effects are considered most important. All viewpoints were supported by a mix of public and experts, but Viewpoint 1 was mostly supported by experts and the other viewpoints were mostly supported by members of the public.ConclusionsThis study identified four distinct viewpoints on the healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands, each supported by a mix of experts and members of the public. There seems to be some, but limited, support for a lifestyle criterion—in particular, among members of the public. Experts seem to favour the decision criteria that are currently applied. The diversity in views deserves attention when policymakers want to adhere to societal preferences and increase policy acceptance.