BackgroundDecisions on limiting life-sustaining treatment for patients in the vegetative state (VS) are emotionally and morally challenging. In Germany, doctors have to discuss, together with the legal surrogate (often a family member), whether the proposed treatment is in accordance with the patient's will. However, it is unknown whether family members of the patient in the VS actually base their decisions on the patient's wishes.ObjectiveTo examine the role of advance directives, orally expressed wishes, or the presumed will of patients in a VS for family caregivers' decisions on life-sustaining treatment.Methods and sampleA qualitative interview study with 14 next of kin of patients in a VS in a long-term care setting was conducted; 13 participants were the patient's legal surrogates. Interviews were analysed according to qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe majority of family caregivers said that they were aware of aforementioned wishes of the patient that could be applied to the VS condition, but did not base their decisions primarily on these wishes. They gave three reasons for this: (a) the expectation of clinical improvement, (b) the caregivers' definition of life-sustaining treatments and (c) the moral obligation not to harm the patient. If the patient's wishes were not known or not revealed, the caregivers interpreted a will to live into the patient's survival and non-verbal behaviour.ConclusionsWhether or not prior treatment wishes of patients in a VS are respected depends on their applicability, and also on the medical assumptions and moral attitudes of the surrogates. We recommend repeated communication, support for the caregivers and advance care planning.

BackgroundVirtual Patients (VPs) have been in the focus of research in healthcare education for many years. The aim of our study was to analyze how virtual patients are described in the healthcare education literature, and how the identified concepts relate to each other.MethodsWe performed a literature review and extracted 185 descriptions of virtual patients from the articles. In a qualitative content analysis approach we inductively-deductively developed categories and deducted subcategories. We constructed a concept map to illustrate these concepts and their interrelations.ResultsWe developed the following five main categories: Patient, Teacher, Virtual Patient, Curriculum, and Learner. The concept map includes these categories and highlights aspects such as the under-valued role of patients in shaping their virtual representation and opposing concepts, such as standardization of learner activity versus learner-centeredness.ConclusionsThe presented concept map synthesizes VP descriptions and serves as a basis for both, VP use and discussions of research topics related to virtual patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0655-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundPhysicians treating patients in the vegetative state (VS) must deal with uncertainty in diagnosis and prognosis, as well as ethical issues. We examined whether physicians’ attitudes toward medical and ethical challenges vary across two national medical practice settings.MethodsA comparative survey was conducted among German and Canadian specialty physicians, based on a case vignette about the VS. Similarities and differences of participants’ attitudes toward medical and ethical challenges between the two samples were analyzed with non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney-U-Test).ResultsThe overall response rate was 13.4%. Eighty percent of all participants correctly applied the diagnostic category of VS with no significant differences between countries. Many of the participants who chose the correct diagnosis of VS attributed capabilities to the patient, particularly the ability to feel pain (70%), touch (51%) and to experience hunger and thirst (35%). A large majority of participants (94%) considered the limitation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) under certain circumstances, but more Canadian participants were in favor of always limiting LST (32% vs. 12%; Chi-square: p < 0.001). Finding long-term care placement was considered more challenging by Canadian participants whereas discontinuing LST was much more challenging for German participants.ConclusionsDifferences were found between two national medical practice settings with respect to physicians’ experiences and attitudes about treatment limitation about VS in spite of comparable diagnostic knowledge.

Hospitals in Germany employ increasing numbers of foreign-born and foreign-trained (FB&FT) physicians. Studies have investigated how FB&FT physicians experience their professional integration into the German healthcare system, however, the perspectives of stakeholders working with and shaping the work experiences of FB&FT physicians in German hospitals have so far been neglected. This study explores relevant stakeholders’ opinions and attitudes towards FB&FT physicians—which likely influence how these physicians settle in—and how these opinions were formed. We conducted a qualitative interview study with 25 stakeholders working in hospitals or in health policy development. The interviews were analyzed within a constructivist research paradigm using methods derived from Grounded Theory (situational analysis as well as open, axial and selective coding). We found that stakeholders tended to focus on problems in FB&FT physicians’ work performance. Participants criticized FB&FT physicians’ work for deviating from presumably shared professional standards (skill or knowledge and behavioral standards). The professional standards invoked to justify problem-focused statements comprised the definition of an ideal behavior, attitude or ability and a tolerance range that was adapted in a dynamic process. Behavior falling outside the tolerance range was criticized as unacceptable, requiring action to prevent similar deviations in the future. Furthermore, we derived three strategies (minimization, homogenization and quality management) proposed by participants to manage deviations from assumed professional standards by FB&FT physicians. We critically reflect on the social processes of evaluation and problematization and question the legitimacy of professional standards invoked. We also discuss discriminatory tendencies visible in evaluative statements of some participants as well as in some of the strategies proposed. We suggest it will be key to develop and implement better support strategies for FB&FT physicians while also addressing problematic attitudes within the receiving system to further professional integration.