Kristin Halvorsen

As the pressure on available health care resources grows, an increasing moral challenge in intensive care is to secure a fair distribution of nursing care and medical treatment. The aim of this article is to explore how limited resources influence nursing care and medical treatment in intensive care, and to explore whether intensive care unit clinicians use national prioritization criteria in clinical deliberations. The study used a qualitative approach including participant observation and in-depth interviews with intensive care unit physicians and nurses working at the bedside. Scarcity of resources regularly led to suboptimal professional standards of medical treatment and nursing care. The clinicians experienced a rising dilemma in that very ill patients with a low likelihood of survival were given advanced and expensive treatment. The clinicians rarely referred to national priority criteria as a rationale for bedside priorities. Because prioritization was carried out implicitly, and most likely partly without the clinician's conscious awareness, central patient rights such as justice and equality could be at risk.

Theoretically, the principle of justice is strong in healthcare priorities both nationally and internationally. Research, however, has indicated that questions can be raised as to how this principle is dealt with in clinical intensive care. The objective of this article is to examine how significant others may affect the principle of justice in the medical treatment and nursing care of intensive care patients. Field observations and in-depth interviews with physicians and nurses in intensive care units (ICU). Emphasis was placed on eliciting the underlying rationale for prioritisations in clinical intensive care with particular focus on clinicians' considerations when limiting ICU treatment. Significant others could induce an unintentional discrimination of ICU patients. Family members who were demanding received more time and attention for both the patient and themselves. Patients' and families' status and position and/or an interesting medical diagnosis seemed to govern the clinicians' priorities of patients and families-consciously as well as unconsciously. The clinicians emphasised that patient information given through families was important. However, patients' preferences and values conveyed to clinicians through their families were not always taken seriously. This even applied in cases with very serious prognoses and an explicit patient wish to forego life-prolonging treatment. The principle of justice was violated when qualified attention was given to significant others, and through this also to patients. Attention given to significant others was influenced by the healthcare workers' professional and personal values, attitudes and interests.

Background: To shed light on the values and considerations that affect the decision-making processes and the decisions to limit intensive care treatment.Method: Qualitative methodology with participant observation and in-depth interviews, with an emphasis on eliciting the underlying rationale of the clinicians' actions and choices when limiting treatment.Results: Informants perceived over-treatment in intensive care medicine as a dilemma. One explanation was that the decision-making base was somewhat uncertain, complex and difficult. The informants claimed that those responsible for taking decisions from the admitting ward prolonged futile treatment because they may bear guilt or responsibility for something that had gone wrong during the course of treatment. The assessments of the patient's situation made by physicians from the admitting ward were often more organ-oriented and the expectations were less realistic than those of clinicians in the intensive care unit who frequently had a more balanced and overall perspective. Aspects such as the personality and the speciality of those involved, the culture of the unit and the degree of interdisciplinary cooperation were important issues in the decision-making processes.Conclusion: Under-communicated considerations jeopardise the principle of equal treatment. If intensive care patients are to be ensured equal treatment, strategies for interdisciplinary, transparent and appropriate decision-making processes must be developed in which open and hidden values are rendered visible, power structures disclosed, employees respected and the various perspectives of the treatment given their legitimate place.

Scand J Caring Sci; 2010; 24; 533–540 Clinical prioritizations and contextual constraints in nursing homes - a qualitative studyAim:  The aim of the study was to describe nurses’ and physicians’ experiences of prioritization factors in nursing homes.Background:  What are the experiences of health care personnel when prioritizing treatment and care for elderly residents in nursing homes? Little research has been done in this area, yet with the growing elderly population and limited health care budgets there can be little doubt about its relevance.Method:  The study was conducted through semi-structured interviews with 13 physicians and nurses in six nursing homes. The interviews were analysed by manifest content analysis based on first- and second-level categories describing relevant factors. The categories were developed after preliminary readings of the texts.Results:  This study revealed that there was a complex set of contextual constraints which influenced the care provided. There were three main findings: (i) some overall challenges related to providing good care to nursing home residents; these in turn influenced (ii) prioritizing dilemmas and (iii) factors influencing prioritization decisions.Discussion:  Contextual constraints and higher level prioritizations seem to play a key role in clinical prioritizations in nursing homes. The combination of implicit rationing and the factors described as most predominant in the clinical prioritizations in nursing homes may result in inadequate and unjust health care services for some of the nursing home residents. In particular, those patients who do not speak up or do have comprehensive needs are at risk of being neglected.