Toh Hui Jin, Low James Alvin, Lim Zhen Yu, Lim Yvonne, Siddiqui Shahla, Tan Lawrence
GeriCare@North, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Education Research, Geriatric Education and Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2018 Mar 23;10(1):37-51. doi: 10.1007/s41649-018-0047-y. eCollection 2018 Mar.
This was an in-depth qualitative study that looked at the reasons patients were referred to the Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) of an acute hospital in Singapore and explore how the CEC approached cases referred. Jonsen's four topics approach was applied in the deliberative process for all cases. A comprehensive review of the case records of 28 patients referred consecutively to the CEC from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014 was conducted. Data and information was collated from the referral forms, patient medical records, and emails communicated among CEC members. A deductive approach to thematic analysis based on Jonsen's four topics approach was used to analyze the documents. Majority of the patients were male (94%), Chinese (76%), and above 65 years of age (41%). Ethical dilemmas surfaced due to differences in opinion regarding withholding of aggressive management (53%), withdrawing treatment (35%), and ascertaining patient's autonomy (12%). In most cases, the patients' preference on end-of-life care was unknown (82%). The main reasons for referral to the CEC were conflicts in clinical management and uncertainty about the decision-making capacity of patients. The CEC members tended to emphasize on "patient preference" more than the other quadrants in the four topics approach as they worked through each case. The Jonsen's four topics approach lays the groundwork to frame ethical dilemmas that can be easily applied in the clinical setting and is a useful tool for the CEC's teaching and discussion. Nonetheless, the approach only organizes ethical dilemmas and requires clinicians to apply own judgment in weighing ethical principles. Further studies can look into adapting the four topics approach to suit the local practices and context.
这是一项深入的定性研究,旨在探究患者被转介至新加坡一家急症医院临床伦理委员会(CEC)的原因,并探讨CEC如何处理所转介的病例。在所有病例的审议过程中都应用了琼森的四个主题方法。对2012年1月1日至2014年12月31日期间连续转介至CEC的28例患者的病例记录进行了全面回顾。从转介表格、患者病历以及CEC成员之间沟通的电子邮件中整理数据和信息。采用基于琼森四个主题方法的演绎式主题分析法对文件进行分析。大多数患者为男性(94%)、华裔(76%),年龄在65岁以上(41%)。由于在放弃积极治疗(53%)、停止治疗(35%)以及确定患者自主权(12%)方面存在意见分歧,出现了伦理困境。在大多数情况下,患者对临终关怀的偏好未知(82%)。转介至CEC的主要原因是临床管理方面的冲突以及对患者决策能力的不确定性。在处理每个病例时,CEC成员在四个主题方法中往往比其他象限更强调“患者偏好”。琼森的四个主题方法为构建可轻松应用于临床环境的伦理困境奠定了基础,是CEC教学和讨论的有用工具。尽管如此,该方法仅对伦理困境进行了组织,要求临床医生在权衡伦理原则时运用自己的判断。进一步的研究可以探讨如何调整四个主题方法以适应当地的实践和背景。