Which principle of ethics requires caregivers to involve the patient in medical decision making?

Which principle of ethics requires caregivers to involve the patient in medical decision making?

There are four commonly accepted principles of health care ethics that providers follow to ensure optimal patient safety: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Let’s take a closer look at the definition of each of these principles and how they are put into practice in the home health care environment.

Autonomy

In the medical field, autonomy refers to the right of the patient to retain control over his or her body. In the home health care environment, it begins with the patient’s decision to receive care at home in lieu of a nursing home or assisted living facility. He or she made this decision because of the desire to age in place in the comfort of home. As a home health care provider, this decision must be respected. It’s also important that while assisting a patient with daily activities, including skilled nursing, personal care, physical therapy, dietary and nutritional services, speech therapy, medical management and other related services, that the patient continues to “have a say” in his or her own decisions. Professionals (RNs) and para-professionals (personal care aides, home health aides, nursing aides) can suggest or advise a course action based on the physician’s assessment and directives, but the ultimate decision lies with the patient. If there is any conflict of interest based on the patient’s beliefs or values, the staff should immediately notify their home health care agency/employer to determine next steps.

Patient autonomy is also critical when it comes to how home health care agencies handle incapacitated patient and life-sustaining treatment decisions and the procedures providers have in place. Consistent written policies and training are both needed for nurses, aides and other staff to handle such difficult ethical dilemmas.

Beneficence

Health care providers are charged with doing all they can to benefit a patient, with all recommended procedures and treatments intended to do the most good for the patient. In order to do this, a high level of skill and knowledge, including ongoing training is needed. In the home health care field, benefiting each client is best accomplished in part by providing continuing education.  Not only does this ensure regulatory compliance but it also helps improve patient outcomes and mitigates injuries and accidents by staying up to date on the latest in patient care, technology and techniques.

As we previously discussed, continuing education requirements in home care differs from state to state, with home health aides working for providers that receive federal funding from Medicare or Medicaid required to finish at least a 75-hour training program along with 16 hours of supervised training. Certified aides who work in Medicare or Medicaid-reimbursed facilities must also accumulate 12 hours of continuing education per 12-month period.

Non-Maleficence

This principle is about “doing no harm”, intended for providers to consider if any decision made may harm another individual or society – even it is made to benefit an individual patient. This is why it’s so important for home health care agencies to implement strong risk management strategies, safety procedures and protocols and best practices for staff to follow. When staff members are well versed in – and understand – a provider’s protocols, there is less room for deviation or exceptions that, while perhaps performed with good intentions, can cause overall harm and liability issues for the provider.

Justice

The principle of justice states that there should be an element of fairness in all medical decisions. This means fairness in decisions that burden and benefit, as well as equal allocation of health care dollars and resources, and for medical practitioners to uphold applicable laws and legislation when making choices. For home health providers, it means having a policy in place to provide care, treatment and services to patients without regard to age, race, religion, sex, national origin or disability. It also requires providers to ensure they are in compliance with both federal and state regulations that govern them.

About Manchester Specialty

Manchester Specialty Programs provides the home health care industry with a wide range of insurance and risk management solutions. We can help home care providers and their insurance brokers navigate the coverage needs of a home health care business and find the best fit for insurance coverage. For more information about our programs and coverages, you or your local insurance agent can contact us today at 802.472.1500.

1. Feinberg LF. Options for supporting family caregivers. A policy paper of the Family Caregiver Alliance. 1997.

2. Levine C. Introduction to family caregiving: current challenges for a time honored practice. Generations (J. Amer. Soc. On Aging) 2003–2004;27:5–8. [Google Scholar]

3. Family Caregiver Alliance, National Center on Caregiving. Caregivers count too! A toolkit to help practitioners assess the needs of family caregivers. June 2006. Available at: http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=1695. Accessed November 11, 2009.

4. Levine C, Reinhard SC, Feinberg LF, Albert S, Hart A. Family caregivers on the job: moving beyond ADLs and IADLs. Generations (J. Amer. Soc. On Aging) 2003–2004;27:17–23. [Google Scholar]

5. Gould DA. Family caregivers and the health care system. Findings from a National Survey. In: Levine C, Murray TH, editors. The Cultures of Caregiving. Conflict and Common Ground among Families, Health Professionals and Policy Makers. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

6. Gibson MJ, Houser AN. Valuing the Invaluable: A New Look at the Economic Value of Family Caregiving. Washington: AARP Public Policy Institute; 2007. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Barr M, Ginsburg J. The advanced medical home: a patient-centered, physician-guided model of health care. Policy monograph. American College of Physicians: 2006. Available at: http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/policy/adv_med.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2009.

8. Glasser M, Prohaska T, Gravdal J. Elderly patients and their accompanying caregivers on medical visits. Res Aging. 2001;23:326–348. doi: 10.1177/0164027501233003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Hirschman KB, Joyce CM, James BD, Xie SX, Karlawish JHT. Do Alzheimer’s Disease patients want to participate in a treatment decision, and would their caregivers let them? Gerontologist. 2005;45:381–388. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Fact Sheet : Helping Families Make Everyday Care Choices (for Providers). Family Caregiver Alliance 2000.. Available at: http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=405. Accessed November 11, 2009.

11. Whitlatch CH, Feinberg LF, Tucke SS. Measuring the values and preferences for everyday care of persons with cognitive impairment and their family caregivers. Gerontologist. 2005;45:370–380. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Tsevat J, Cook EF, Green ML, et al. Health values of the seriously ill. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:514–520. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Levine C. The good doctor: the carer’s perspective. Clin Med. 2004;4(3):244–245. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. 45CFR164.510

15. Wilson JF. Health insurance portability and accountability act privacy rule causes ongoing concerns among clinicians and researchers. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):313–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Auerbach SM, Kiesler DJ, Wartella J, Rausch S, Ward KR, Ivatury R. Optimism, satisfaction with needs met, interpersonal perceptions of the healthcare team, and emotional distress in patients’ family members during critical care hospitalization. Am J Crit Care. 2005;14:202–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Alzheimer’s Association. Alzheimer’s Disease Study: Communication Gaps Between Primary Care Physicians and Caregivers. May 2001. Available at: http://www.alz.org/national/documents/alzheimerreport.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2009.

18. Rabow MW, Hauser JW, Adams J. Supporting family caregivers at the end of life. “They don’t know what they don’t know” JAMA. 2004;291:483–491. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.4.483. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Cherlin E, Fried T, Prigerson HG, Schulman-Green D, Johnson-Hurzeler R, Bradley EH. Communication between physicians and family caregivers about care at the end of life: when do discussions occur and what is said? J Palliat Med. 2005;8:1176–1185. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2005.8.1176. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Ronch JL. Changing institutional culture: turning adversaries into partners. In: Levine C, Murray TH, editors. The Cultures of Caregiving. Conflict and Common Ground among Families, Health Professionals and Policy Makers. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

21. Kaldjian LC, Curtis AE, Shinkunas LA, Cannon KT. Goals of care toward the end of life: a structured literature review. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. 2009;25:501–511. doi: 10.1177/1049909108328256. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. von Gunten, Ferris FD, Emanuel LL. Ensuring competency in end-of-life care. Communication and relational skills. JAMA. 2000;284:3051–7. [PubMed]

23. Crawley LM, Marshal PA, Koenig BA. Respecting cultural differences at the end of life. In: Snyder L, Quill T, editors. Physician’s Guide to End of Life Care. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2001. pp. 35–55. [Google Scholar]

24. Rodriquez KL, Young AJ. Perspectives of elderly veterans regarding communications of medical providers about EOL Care. J Palliat Med. 2005;8:534–544. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2005.8.534. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Covinsky KE, Yaffe K. Editorial Dementia, prognosis and the needs of patients and caregivers. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:573–574. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Ethics and Human Rights Committee, American College of Physicians. Ethics manual: fifth edition. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:560–82. Available at: http://www.acponline.org/running_practice/ethics/manual/. Accessed on November 11, 2009.

27. Perkins HS. Controlling Death: The false promise of advance directives. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:51–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Karlawish JH, Quill TE, Meier DE. A Consensus-based Approach to Practicing Palliative Care for Patients Who Lack Decision-making Capacity. In: Snyder L, Quill T, editors. Physician’s Guide to End of Life Care. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2001. pp. 19–34. [Google Scholar]

29. Fins JJ, Maltby BS, Friedmann E, et al. Contracts, covenants and advance care planning: an empirical study of the moral obligations of patient and proxy. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005;29(1):55–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.07.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Fins JJ, Maltby BS. Fidelity, Wisdom, and Love: Patients and Proxies in Partnership. New York: Fan Fox and Leslie R. Samuels Foundation; 2003. [Google Scholar]

31. Lang F, Quill T. Making decisions with families at the end of life. Am Fam Physician. 2004;70:719–723. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Quill TE, Byock IR. Responding to intractable suffering: the role of terminal sedation and voluntary refusal of food and fluids. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:408–414. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Parks SM, Novielli KD. A practical guide to caring for caregivers. Am Fam Physician. 2000;62(12):2613–2622. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, Min S. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(17):1822–1828. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.17.1822. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Musil CM, Morris DL, Warner CB, Saeid H. Issues in Caregivers’ stress and providers’ support. Res Aging. 2003;25:505–526. doi: 10.1177/0164027503254624. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Mezey M. Nurses and Their Changing Relationship to Family Caregivers. In: Levine C, Murray TH, editors. The Cultures of Caregiving. Conflict and Common Ground among Families, Health Professionals and Policy Makers. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

37. Brazil K, Bedard M, Krueger P, Abernathy T, Lohfeld L, Willison K. Service preferences among family caregivers of the terminally ill. J Palliat Med. 2005;8:69–78. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2005.8.69. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Given BA, Given CW, Kozachik S. Family support in advanced cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51:213–231. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.51.4.213. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Levine C, Murray TH. Conclusion. Building on Common Ground. In: Levine C, Murray TH, editors. The Cultures of Caregiving. Conflict and Common Ground among Families, Health Professionals and Policy Makers. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

40. Dern A, Heath A. Reaching out to caregivers through physicians. Generations (J. Amer. Soc. On Aging) 2003–2004;27:84–86. [Google Scholar]

41. National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. Caregiving in the US. April 2004. Bethesda, MD and Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.caregiving.org/data/04finalreport.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2009.

42. Evercare and The National Alliance for Caregiving. Evercare study of caregivers in decline: a close-up look at the health risks of caring for a loved one. September 2006. Minnetonka, Minnesota. Available at: http://www.caregiving.org/data/Caregivers%20in%20Decline%20Study-FINAL-lowres.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2009.

43. Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the caregiver health effects study. JAMA. 1999;282:2215–2219. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.23.2215. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Belle SH, et al. Enhancing the quality of life of dementia caregivers from different ethnic or racial groups; a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:727–738. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Benefield LE, Beck C. Reducing the distance in distance-caregiving by technology innovation. Clin Interv Aging. 2007;2(2):267–272. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Karlawish J, Quill TE, Meier D. For the ACP-ASIM End-of-Life Care Consensus Panel. A consensus-based approach to providing palliative care to patients who lack decision-making capacity. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:835–840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Definition of Palliative Care. Available at http://www.aahpm.org/positions/definition.html. Accessed November 11, 2009.

48. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Hospice Benefits. CMS Publication No. 02154 Revised September 2008. Available at: http://www.medicare.gov/publications/Pubs/pdf/02154.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2009.

49. Bascom PB, Tolle SW. Care of the family when the patient is dying. West J Med. 1995;163:292–296. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Hebert RS, Dang Q, Schulz R. Preparedness for the death of a loved one and mental health in bereaved caregivers of patients with dementia: Findings from the REACH study. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(3):683–693. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2006.9.683. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Schulz R, Mendelsohn AB, Haley WE, et al. End-of-life Care and the effects of bereavement on family caregivers of persons with dementia. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1936–1942. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa035373. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. Schulz R, Beach SR, Lind R, et al. Involvement in caregiving and adjustment to the death of a spouse. Findings from the Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA. 2001;285:3123–3129. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.24.3123. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. Cassarett D, Kutner JS, Abrahm J. Life after death: a practical approach to grief and bereavement. In: Snyder L, Quill T, editors. Physician’s Guide to End of Life Care. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2001. pp. 178–193. [Google Scholar]

54. Crawley LM, Marshall PA, Lo B, Koenig BA. End-of-Life Care Consensus Panel. Strategies for culturally effective end-of-life care. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(9):673–679. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Lo B, Quill T, Tulsky J. Discussing palliative care with patients. ACP-ASIM End-of-Life Care Consensus Panel. American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:744–749. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Wasserman RC, Hassuk BM, Young PC, Land ML. Health care of physicians’ children. Pediatrics. 1989;83:319–322. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Wahls TL. Reflections: a daughter’s duty. JGIM. 2008;23(6):887–888. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0465-0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Sirmon MD. Tobacco, tulips, and terminal care. Ann Intern Med 1993; 1042–1043. Available at: http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1042.full. Accessed November 11, 2009. [PubMed]

59. Southwick F. Who Was Caring for Mary? Ann Intern Med 1993; 146–148. Available at: http://www.annals.org/content/118/2/146.full. Accessed November 11, 2009.

60. Chen FM, Feudtner C, Rhodes LA, Green LA. Role conflicts of physicians and their family members: rules but no rulebook. West J Med. 2001;175(4):236–239. doi: 10.1136/ewjm.175.4.236. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]