↓ Skip to main content

Ethical Concerns and Procedural Pathways for Patients Who are Incapacitated and Alone: Implications from a Qualitative Study for Advancing Ethical Practice

Overview of attention for article published in HEC Forum, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 183)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Ethical Concerns and Procedural Pathways for Patients Who are Incapacitated and Alone: Implications from a Qualitative Study for Advancing Ethical Practice
Published in
HEC Forum, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10730-016-9317-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Moye, Casey Catlin, Jennifer Kwak, Erica Wood, Pamela B. Teaster

Abstract

Adults who are incapacitated and alone, having no surrogates, may be known as "unbefriended." Decision-making for these particularly vulnerable patients is a common and vexing concern for healthcare providers and hospital ethics committees. When all other avenues for resolving the need for surrogate decision-making fail, patients who are incapacitated and alone may be referred for "public guardianship" or guardianship of last resort. While an appropriate mechanism in theory, these programs are often under-staffed and under-funded, laying the consequences of inadequacies on the healthcare system and the patient him or herself. We describe a qualitative study of professionals spanning clinical, court, and agency settings about the mechanisms for resolving surrogate consent for these patients and problems therein within the state of Massachusetts. Interviews found that all participants encountered adults who are incapacitated and without surrogates. Four approaches for addressing surrogate needs were: (1) work to restore capacity; (2) find previously unknown surrogates; (3) work with agencies to obtain surrogates; and (4) access the guardianship system. The use of guardianship was associated with procedural challenges and ethical concerns including delays in care, short term gains for long term costs, inabilities to meet a patient's values and preferences, conflicts of interest, and ethical discomfort among interviewees. Findings are discussed in the context of resources to restore capacity, identify previously unknown surrogates, and establish improved surrogate mechanisms for this vulnerable population.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 27%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 11 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,398,364
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#11
of 183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,484
of 422,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them