[Ethical case discussions in the intensive care unit : from testing to routine].

BACKGROUND: The daily work of many healthcare professionals has become more complex and demanding in recent years. Apart from purely medical issues, ethical questions and problems arise quite often. Managing these problems requires ethical knowledge. Questions about the usefulness of a therapy and treatment occur especially at the end of life. So-called medical futility, a useless futile therapy, is often perceived by nurses and physicians in intensive care units who themselves often develop symptoms of depression or burnout. The clinical ethical model METAP (acronym from module, ethics, therapy decision, allocation and process) provides methods and criteria that allow the clinical team to treat and solve ethical issues according to a solution-oriented approach. The ethical decision-making of this model addresses these issues according to a series of sequential stages in the form of a so-called escalation model. When it is not possible to tackle and solve an ethical problem or dilemma in one stage, one moves to the next. The implementation of this approach in everyday practice requires the commitment of all team members in addition to certain basic conditions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a surgical intensive care unit a fixed date in the schedule is reserved for ethical case discussions (level 3 of the escalation model). At this level a team member who has been specified according to a quarterly plan is responsible for the organization and performance of the discussion. All protocols of the 44 ethical case discussions in 41 patients between January 2011 and July 2012 were collected and summarized. A short questionnaire to all participants recorded their assessment of the benefits for the patient and the team as well as their perception of personal stress reduction. Also queried was the impact of this method on the collaboration between nurses and physicians and the ethical competence.
RESULTS: Ethical case discussions among the care team took place regularly (44 case discussions between January 2011 and June 2012). The duration of these discussions ranged from 30 to 60 min. On average 6.2 persons took part, including 2.7 nurses and 3.2 physicians. Of the 41 patients (16 female, 25 male) for whom a discussion was carried out, 23 died during the continued hospital stay. The respondents (response rate 52 %) assessed the benefit for patients and team as high (slightly higher benefit for physicians than nurses) and 55 % of physicians and 71 % of nurses perceived a reduction in the burden of decision-making in difficult cases due to the case discussions. All physicians and 66 % of the nurses reported an improvement in the cooperation between the professional groups and 80 % of the nurses and more than half of the physicians noticed an increase in their own ethical competence.
CONCLUSION: A methodically structured ethical decision-making process can and should be integrated into the clinical routine. This process requires a fixed place in everyday practice and the defined responsibility for the actual organization and performance. Support by medical and nursing management personnel is also essential for the implementation. The regular occurrence of ethical case discussions among the care team relieves the participants and improves collaboration between nurses and physicians.