Facilitating ethical, legal, and professional deliberations to resolve dilemmas in daily healthcare practice: A case of driver with breakthrough seizures.

OBJECTIVE

The present study was conducted among pharmacy students to use an 8-step systematic approach to facilitate discussions, deliberations, and decision-making on what to do when facing a dilemma of a patient with epilepsy who drives while having breakthrough seizures.

METHODS

A hypothetical case was developed using the 12-tips for developing dilemma case-based assessments in health education. A mixed method was used in this study. A serial group discussions based on the nominal group technique (NGT) method were applied. A thorough review of the literature and interviews with key experts in the domain (n = 12) were conducted to obtain pertinent data to inform discussions, deliberations, and decision-making. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to pairwise compare countervailing arguments and alternative courses of action.

RESULTS

In this study, 3 nominal groups were held, and for each 3, discussion rounds were conducted. A total of 27 panelists took part in the nominal groups. Compared with other alternative courses of action, significantly higher weight scores (p-value < 0.001) were given to the course action, "the pharmacist could counsel/educate the patient on the dangers/risks of driving while experiencing breakthrough seizures, inform the patient to refrain from driving in this period, and make a shared decision with the patient to refrain from driving in this period and inform the state authorities".

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the 8-step approach when combined with the AHP can be a handy method in facilitating decision-making while addressing and resolving ethical/legal/professional dilemmas in daily healthcare practice.