Clinical ethics support services are developing in Europe. They will be most useful if they are designed to match the ethical concerns of clinicians. We conducted a cross-sectional mailed survey on random samples of general physicians in Norway, Switzerland, Italy, and the UK, to assess their access to different types of ethics support services, and to describe what makes them more likely to have used available ethics support. Respondents reported access to formal ethics support services such as clinical ethics committees (...) (23%), consultation in individual cases (17.6%), and individual ethicists (8.8%), but also to other kinds of less formal ethics support (23.6%). Access to formal ethics support services was associated with work in urban hospitals. Informal ethics resources were more evenly distributed. Although most respondents (81%) reported that they would find help useful in facing ethical difficulties, they reported having used the available services infrequently (14%). Physicians with greater confidence in their knowledge of ethics (P = 0.001), or who had had ethics courses in medical school (P = 0.006), were more likely to have used available services. Access to help in facing ethical difficulties among general physicians in the surveyed countries is provided by a mix of official ethics support services and other resources. Developing ethics support services may benefit from integration of informal services. Development of ethics education in medical school curricula could lead to improved physicians sensititity to ethical difficulties and greater use of ethics support services. Such support services may also need to be more proactive in making their help available. (shrink)

Background Decisions regarding Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders remain demanding, as does including patients in the process. Objectives To explore physicians’ justification for CPR/DNAR orders and decisions regarding patient inclusion, as well as their reports of how they initiated discussions with patients. Methods We administered a face-to-face survey to residents in charge of 206 patients including DNAR and CPR orders, with or without patient inclusion. Results Justifications were provided for 59% of DNAR orders and included (...) severe comorbidity, patients and families’ resuscitation preferences, patients’ age, or poor prognosis or quality of life. Reasons to include patients in CPR/DNAR decisions were provided in 96% and 84% of cases, and were based on respect for autonomy, clinical assessment of the situation as not too severe, and the view that such inclusion was required. Reasons for not including patients were offered in 84% of cases for CPR and in 70% for DNAR. They included absent decision-making capacity, a clinical situation viewed as good (CPR) or offering little hope of recovery (DNAR), barriers to communication, or concern that discussions could be emotionally difficult or superfluous. Decisions made earlier in the patient's management were infrequently viewed as requiring revision. Residents reported a variety of introductions to discussions with patients. Conclusions These results provide better understanding of reasons for CPR/DNAR decisions, reasons for patient inclusion or lack thereof, and ways in which such inclusion is initiated. They also point to potential side-effects of implementing CPR/DNAR recommendations without in-depth and practical training. This should be part of a regular audit and follow-up process for such recommendations. (shrink)