Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events news 2017 11 25.

Page not found

You are here

Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil

Director

Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, is Professor, Deputy Chair, and Residency Program Director in the Department of Radiation Oncology and Director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at the University of Michigan.

She graduated first in her class from Harvard College and then pursued her medical training at Harvard Medical School. She also served as a fellow in the Center for Ethics at Harvard University and completed her doctorate in Social Policy at Oxford University as a Marshall Scholar.

Last Name: 
Jagsi
Research Projects: 
Press Coverage: 

Bioethics Grand Rounds -Scott Grant MD, MBE

Wed, May 24, 2017, 12:00pm
Location: 
UH Ford Auditorium

Scott Grant, MD, MBE, University of Chicago: "Dealing with complications and poor outcomes and surgical futility"

Scott Grant, MD, MBE, University of Chicago

Abstract: Surgical complications are ubiquitous and effect all surgeons. This talk will review how surgical ethics is distinct from traditional medical ethics in that surgeons have a greater and more direct responsibility for the outcomes of their patients than medical doctors. It will review how surgery harms before healing and the importance of weighing risks and benefits in decision making. Ways of assessing perioperative risk and preventing complications will be reviewed. Strategies for coping with complications will be described. Human error theory and the "Swiss cheese" model of human error will briefly be discussed. The SPIKES protocol for breaking bad news will be reviewed. Different definitions of futility will be described. Various procedural approaches to futility disputes will be analyzed. The best tool in approaching challenging "futility" situations will be described - open and honest communication between the patient or surrogate and the physician.

PIHCD: Michele Gornick

Wed, January 25, 2017, 4:00pm
Location: 
NCRC bldg 16 B001E

Michele Gornick/ Tolu Olorode will be seeking feedback on a draft of our survey for a project “Eliciting Veterans’ perspectives on informed consent processes for sharing big data”

Supporting information for: 2017 CBSSM Research Colloquium and Bishop Lecture (Norman Daniels, PhD)


"Setting priorities for Medicaid: The views of minority and underserved communities"
Presenter: Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA


Co-authors: Lisa Szymecko, JD, PhD; H. Myra Kim, ScD; Cengiz Salman, MA; A. Mark Fendrick, MD; Edith Kieffer, MPH, PhD; Marion Danis, MD, Zachary Rowe, BBA


Setting priorities for state Medicaid programs challenges policy makers. Engaging beneficiaries affected by tradeoffs could make allocations more just and more sensitive to their needs. 

Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT (CHoosing All Together) to engage community members in deliberations about Medicaid spending priorities.  After an informational video about Medicaid, individuals and deliberating groups choose from a menu of spending options constrained by limited resources. We randomly assigned participants from low-income communities throughout Michigan to participate in CHAT with (n=209) or without group deliberations (n=181) in English, Spanish or Arabic. Data collection included pre- and post-CHAT individual priorities and group priorities.

Low-income participants ranged from 18 to 81 years old (Mean 48.3); 61.6% were women. Over half (56.7%) self-identified as white, 30.8% African-American, 17.3% Hispanic, 9.2% Native American, and 12.1% Arab, Arab-American or Chaldean. Most (65.9%) had a chronic condition and 30.3% reported poor or fair health.

Before CHAT, most participants prioritized eligibility consistent with Medicaid expansion. They also prioritized coverage for a broad range of services. Most accepted daily copays for elective hospitalization (71.6% deliberators, 67.9% controls) and restricted access to specialists (60.2% deliberators, 57.4% controls). Deliberators were more likely than controls to increase, after deliberations, what they allocated to mental health care (between arm difference in allocation=0.22, p=.03) and eligibility (between arm difference in allocation=0.18, p=.04). Deliberating groups also prioritized eligibility; only 3 of 22 chose pre-expansion eligibility criteria, and 9 of 22 chose to expand eligibility further.

Members of underserved communities in Michigan put a high priority on Medicaid expansion and broad coverage. When given the opportunity to deliberate about priorities,  participants increased the priority given to expanded eligibility and coverage for mental health services.


"How Acceptable Is Paternalism? A Survey-Based Study of Clinician and Non-clinician Opinions on Decision Making After Life Threatening Stroke"
Presenter: Kunal Bailoor, MD Candidate


Co-authors: Chithra Perumalswami, MD, MSc; Andrew Shuman, MD; Raymond De Vries, PhD; Darin Zahuranec, MD, MS


Complex medical scenarios may benefit from a more paternalistic model of decision making. Yet, clinicians are taught to value patient autonomy, especially at the end-of-life. Little empirical data exist exploring opinions on paternalism.

Methods: A vignette-based survey exploring surrogate decision making after hemorrhagic stroke was administered to clinicians (faculty, residents, and nurses) at an academic health center, and non-clinicians recruited through a university research volunteer website. The cases involved an urgent decision about brain surgery, and a non-urgent decision about continuation of life support one week after stroke. Respondents rated the acceptability of paternalistic decision making, including clinicians not offering or making an explicit recommendation against the treatment, on a 4 point Likert scale.

Results: Of 924 eligible individuals, 818 (649 non-clinicians, 169 clinicians) completed the survey (completion rate 89%).  A minority of respondents (15.3%) found it acceptable not to offer surgery. Most believed it was acceptable to make an explicit recommendation that would likely result in death (73% for avoiding surgery, 69% for stopping the ventilator). Clinicians were more likely than non-clinicians to consider not offering surgery acceptable (30% vs 11%, p<0.0001). Clinicians were more likely to consider recommendations against surgery acceptable (82% vs 71%, p=0.003) and to consider recommendations to discontinue the ventilator acceptable (77% vs 67%, p=0.02). There were no differences between the nurse and physician acceptability ratings (p=0.92).

Conclusions: Clinicians and the lay public differ on the acceptability of paternalistic decision making. Understanding these differences are vital to improving communication between clinicians, patients, and families.


"Ethical Challenges Faced by Providers in Pediatric Death: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis"
Presenter: Stephanie Kukora, MD


Co-authors: Janice Firn, PhD, MSW; Patricia Keefer, MD; Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA
 

Background: Care providers of critically ill patients encounter ethically complex and morally distressing situations in practice. Though ethics committees guide ethical decision-making when conflicts arise in challenging cases, they rarely address routine needs of individual providers. Without ethics education, providers may lack skills necessary to resolve these conflicts or insight to recognize these dilemmas.

Objective: We sought to identify whether providers remark on ethical dilemmas/moral distress without being specifically prompted, when asked to comment on a recent in-hospital pediatric death. We also sought to characterize the nature of dilemmas or distress if found.

Methods: Providers involved in a deceased child’s care in the 24 hours prior to death were electronically surveyed. Questions included demographic information and free-text response. Free-text responses were thematically analyzed in Dedoose.

Results: There were 307 (35%) free-text responses in 879 completed surveys (33% total response rate), regarding the deaths of 138 patients (81% of in-hospital pediatric deaths) from November 2014 to May 2016. Multidisciplinary care team members from diverse hospital units were represented. 52 respondents described ethical challenges and/or moral distress. Disagreement/regret was a major theme, with subthemes of futility, suffering, and “wrong” medical choice made. Failure of shared decision-making was also a major theme, with subthemes of autonomy and best interest, false hope, denial, and misunderstanding/disagreement between the family and medical team. Some providers revealed personal ethical struggles pertaining to their role, including medication provision for pain at the end of life, struggling to be “truthful” while not divulging information inappropriate for their role, and determining when providing comfort care is ethically permissible.

Discussion/Conclusion: Providers experience ethical conflicts with pediatric end-of-life care but may be unwilling or unable to share them candidly. Education assisting staff in identifying and resolving these dilemmas may be helpful. Further support for providers to debrief safely, without criticism or repercussions, may be warranted.


"Capacity for Preferences:  An overlooked criterion for resolving ethical dilemmas with incapacitated patients"
Presenters: Jason Adam Wasserman, PhD; Mark Navin, PhD
 

Clinical bioethics traditionally recognizes a hierarchy of procedural standards for determining a patient’s best plan of care. In broad terms, priority is given first to autonomous patients themselves and then to surrogates who utilize substituted judgments to choose as they believe the patient would have chosen. In the absence of good information about what the patient would have wanted, clinical ethicists typically retreat to the “best interest” standard, which represents a relatively objective assessment designed to maximize benefits and/or minimize harms.  In this paper, we argue that “capacity for preferences” is a conceptually distinct and morally salient procedural standard for determining a patient’s best plan of care.  We build our argument on the grounds that 1) that many patients who lack decisional capacity can nevertheless reliably express preferences (an empirical claim); 2) these preferences are distinct from best interest and not reducible to best interest considerations; 3) that capacity for preferences, at a minimum, has moral valence for situations in which best interest is undetermined (and we argue this happens more frequently than commonly recognized); and, finally, 4) that capacity for preferences in incapacitated patients lacking reliable or valid surrogates might even subvert a best interest course of action in some cases.  Some precedent for our analysis can be found in the concept of pediatric assent. However, the idea that patient preferences matter morally has broad application for adult patients, including for those with advanced dementia and other mental illnesses that preclude capacity for decision-making.

Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA

Faculty

Dr. Naomi T. Laventhal joined the University of Michigan in August 2009, after completing her residency in pediatrics, fellowships in neonatology and clinical medical ethics, and a master’s degree in public policy at the University of Chicago. She is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases in the Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, and in the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM).

Last Name: 
Laventhal

The Diabetes Lobby (Dec-09)

Tell us what you think about certain public policies designed to reduce the incidence of diabetes in the US.

Please read this hypothetical news article and then answer a few questions at the end.

People with Diabetes Lobby Congress This Week

Washington, March 28 – About 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes (also commonly known as adult-onset or non-insulin-dependent diabetes) have converged here as advocates for the American Diabetes Association (ADA). They will be meeting with their members of Congress to discuss their condition and advocate for federal policies to address their disease. In addition, they will hold a rally on Thursday of this week on the National Monument grounds, to attract popular attention to their disease.
 
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 21 million Americans have diabetes, but one-third of these people do not yet know they have the disease. More than 90% of people with diabetes have type 2 diabetes, a form of diabetes which typically emerges when people are adults but which may develop during childhood. The number of people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes has been increasing every year. There were over 1 million new cases of diabetes diagnosed in 2005 among adults. Researchers believe that the conditions in the neighborhoods where people live increase their chances of getting type 2 diabetes. Rates of diabetes are highest among people living in poor neighborhoods.
 
People with type 2 diabetes develop a problem with the way their body secretes or responds to insulin, a hormone that regulates blood glucose levels. As a result, they have elevated blood sugar levels, which they must check multiple times per day and monitor their food intake. Researchers are working hard to understand more about what causes type 2 diabetes. Diabetes expert Dr. Howard Smith says, "People who live in neighborhoods where the majority of stores sell food with high calories and low nutritional value, such as fast food restaurants or convenience stores, are much more likely to develop diabetes." Several other scientific studies have supported the idea that people’s neighborhoods, including not having convenient or safe places to exercise, and being exposed to many advertisements selling high-calorie foods, are associated with the development of diabetes.
 
If left untreated, people with diabetes can become blind, have kidney damage, lose their limbs, or die. Physicians, health plans, employers, and policymakers are considering new ways to prevent diabetes, help patients manage their diabetes, and reduce this deadly epidemic. It is expected that the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, and Labor will consider several bills about diabetes in the upcoming session of Congress.
 
Some people with diabetes check their blood sugar with a device called a glucometer.
 
Having read this news article, please tell us if you agree with the following policies:
 
The government should impose higher taxes on food high in calories and fat, like it does for cigarettes.
 
  • strongly disagree
  • disagree
  • neutral
  • agree
  • strongly agree
The government should provide financial incentives to encourage grocery stores to locate in areas where there are few.
 
  • strongly disagree
  • disagree
  • neutral
  • agree
  • strongly agree
The government should regulate advertisements for junk food like it does for cigarettes and alcohol.
 
  • strongly disagree
  • disagree
  • neutral
  • agree
  • strongly agree

Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?

  • Strong Democrat
  • Not so strong Democrat
  • Independent, close to Democrat
  • Independent
  • Independent, close to Republican
  • Not so strong Republican
  • Strong Republican
  • Don't know, haven't thought much about it

How you answered: 

Researchers affiliated with CBDSM and the School of Public Health have found that "Americans' opinions about health policy are polarized on political partisan lines. Democrats and Republicans differ in the ways that they receive and react to messages about the social determinants of health."

In the study, lead author Sarah Gollust, PhD, randomly assigned participants to read one of four hypothetical news articles about type 2 diabetes. Diabetes was used as an example of a common health issue that is widely debated and that is known to have multiple contributing factors, including genetic predisposition, behavioral choices, and social determinants (such as income or neighborhood environments).

The articles were identical except for the causal frame embedded in the text. The article that you read in this Decision of the Month presented social determinants as a cause for type 2 diabetes. Other versions of the article presented genetic predisposition or behavioral choices as a cause for type 2 diabetes, and one version had no causal language.

Dr. Gollust then asked the study participants their views of seven nonmedical governmental policies related to the environmental, neighborhood, or economic determinants of diabetes:

  • bans on fast food concessions in public schools
  • incentives for grocery stores to establish locations where there are currently few
  • bans on trans fat in restaurants
  • government investment in parks
  • regulating junk food advertisements
  • imposing taxes on junk foods
  • subsidizing the costs of healthy food

Dr. Gollust also asked participants their political party identification and a number of other self-reported characteristics.

The most dramatic finding of this study was that the news story with the social determinants as a cause for type 2 diabetes had significantly different effects on the policy views of participants, depending on whether they identified themselves as Democrats or Republicans. After reading the social determinants article, Democrats expressed a higher level of support for the proposed public health policies. Republicans expressed a lower level of support for the proposed public health policies. This effect occurred only in the group of participants who were randomly assigned to read the version of the news article with social determinants given as a cause for type 2 diabetes. Dr. Gollust summarizes: "Exposure to the social determinants message produced a divergence of opinion by political party, with Democrats and Republicans differing in their opinions by nearly 0.5 units of the 5-point scale."

The study suggests several possible explanations for these results:

"First, the social determinants media frame may have presumed a liberal worldview to which the Republican study participants disagreed or found factually erroneous (ie, not credible), but with which Democrats felt more comfortable or found more familiar. . . Second, media consumption is becoming increasingly polarized by party identification, and . . . the social determinants message may have appeared particularly biased to Republicans. . .Third, the social determinants frame may have primed, or activated, study participants' underlying attitudes about the social group highlighted in the news article. . . Fourth, participants' party identification likely serves as proxy for . . . values held regarding personal versus social responsibility for health."

Dr. Gollust and her colleagues conclude that if public health advocates want to mobilize the American public to support certain health policies, a segmented communication approach may be needed. Some subgroups of Americans will not find a message about social determinants credible. These subgroups value personal responsibility and find social determinants antagonistic to their worldview. To avoid triggering immediate resistance by these citizens to information about social determinants of health, public health advocates may consider the use of information about individual behavioral factors in educational materials, while working to build public familiarity with and acceptance of research data on social determinants.

For more details about this study:

Gollust SE, Lantz PM, Ubel PA, The polarizing effect of news media messages about the social determinants of health, Am J Public Health 2009, 99:2160-2167.
 

 

Thu, April 04, 2013

Babies cry and spit up … and too often those common symptoms are labeled as disease, according to a new study conducted by U-M researchers. Frequent use of the GERD label can lead to overuse of medication. The study was published online today in the journal Pediatrics.

Stories have already been published by Reuters,  Yahoo News!MedPage TodayNPRMSN Healthy Living,  CBS News, and the Chicago Tribune, among others. Laura Scherer, PHD, Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, Angela Fagerlin, PhD and Beth Tarini, MD are authors on this study.

Mon, June 23, 2014

Brian Zikmund-Fisher was interviewed by Reuters Health for the article "Shared decision making still lacking for cancer screening." He discusses his research and trade-offs in cancer screenings. "What this study does is it shows that despite all of the initiatives and the discussion of shared decision making that has been going on, we don't seem to be moving the needle very much," he states. 

His interview also received press in the Chicago Tribune and New York Daily News.

Sorry, Doc, that doesn't fit my schedule (Feb-04)

Patients sometimes skip treatments because they just feel too busy. What should physicians do when their patients ignore their recommendations?

Imagine you are a businessperson who works long hours and you are on your way up to having a successful and lucrative career. You have a major business deal that will consume nearly all of your time over the upcoming month and your boss is relying on you to make sure the deal goes through. This is your chance to really make your mark and show your corporation that you are the kind of person that can handle deals as big as this one. Also suppose you have been smoking on and off for 25 years. You know it's a bad habit that could destroy your lungs, but you just can't quite kick it. Lately, you have been feeling tired, you have been experiencing chest pains when you are really busy at work and when you exercise, and you have had trouble breathing when climbing a flight of stairs. The chest pains are usually relieved by a little rest, but you decide it's time to get this examined by a doctor.

One day after work, you go to see Dr. Coral, who gives you a stress test and determines that you'll need an appointment for an angiogram to better evaluate your coronary arteries. Fortunately, you find one free day right before things get hectic at work, so you schedule the angiogram. Now imagine you have just had the angiogram and you are recovering in a paper gown waiting for Dr. Coral to come back with the results. Dr. Coral enters the room to speak with you and he has a serious look on his face. He says,

"I have both good and bad news for you. The angiogram shows that your 3 main coronary arteries are all severely blocked. The good news is that we caught this before you had a major heart attack."

"The bad news is that I am recommending you have triple bypass surgery as soon as possible. Your heart is working overtime, and it is just a matter of time until it gives out."

The news is shocking, but in addition to your health concerns, you also have the business deal to worry about. This deal is an opportunity to make a name for yourself, and your boss has been very vocal that he was counting on you, trusting that you'd be the one for the job. You find yourself having to weigh your work ambitions against the recommendation from Dr. Coral because if you get surgery, there is no way you'd be able to take on your current work responsibility.
 
Which of the following decisions would you be most likely to make?
 
  • I would put aside Dr. Coral's recommendation and instead take responsibility at work for the current deal. I'll wait to have surgery in about a month.
  • I would follow Dr. Coral's recommendation by having surgery immediately, even though this forfeits the current opportunity at work.

A little feedback on what you chose.

It's not that physician's don't care about your other values, but they are primarily concerned about your health, and you might not even have lived long enough to finish the business deal if you didn't have this surgery immediately. This does, however, bring up an important fact: patient's do sometimes reject their physician's medical judgment, and it can be at a great cost to their health.
 
Why should a patient be part of the decision-making process?
 
Why shouldn't Dr. Coral just tell you that you need surgery and leave no alternative? Efforts to share decision-making with patients are important because they acknowledge patients' rights to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs. In addition to being ethically-sound, this shared decision-making process also leads to improved patient health outcomes.
 
What can a physician do to help the patient choose surgery?
 
To answer this question, first it needs to be emphasized that in order for a patient to be able to participate in the decision-making process, the patient must be able to soundly make decisions. This sounds abstract and subjective, but it can be broken down into something a little more concrete. Decision-making capacity (DMC) is based on four guidelines:
 
The patient is able to:
 
  • understand the information about the condition and the choices available;
  • make a judgment about the information in keeping with his or her personal values and beliefs;
  • understand the potential outcomes or consequences of different choices; and
  • freely communicate his or her wishes
Based on these four elements, it is possible to see what a physician can do to help facilitate a "good" health decision. In order to make sure a patient fully understands the situation, a physician can ask him or her to state their understanding of the problem and of the treatment options. Also, a physician should use clear and unambiguous language with the patient at all times. Although a report might be quite clear from a physician's perspective, a patient might not be as clear about all the details. In the situation you were asked to imagine, Dr. Coral should tell you that you will die without this surgery and that waiting is not a safe option.
Also, there might be other factors keeping a patient from following a physician's recommendation. Again, in your hypothetical situation, your boss was putting a lot of pressure on you not to let him down. Also, this decision would potentially have an effect on your advancement at work. You might not have felt free to elect surgery even if you knew it was the only good decision for your health. By directly acknowledging and addressing a patients' concerns, physicians may facilitate a decision for the surgery.
 
In conclusion, if a physician feels that a patient is not able to fulfill one or more of the elements of DMC then his or her ability to make that decision should be brought into question and surrogate decision makers should be sought. For more serious decisions, the standards for DMC should be higher than for less important decisions or those with less significant outcome differences among the choices.
 
For more information see:

 

Fri, March 12, 2010

Peter Ubel, MD, spoke recently at the DeVos Medical Ethics Colloquy at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Dr. Ubel's presentation, "Rationing vs. Rationalizing Health Care," was covered by news outlets in western Michigan. To see a clip from television reports, go to http://www.peterubel.com.

Pages