Rapid advances in neurotechnology and neurosurgery are positioned to revolutionize care for patients suffering from debilitating neurological and psychiatric disease. Enthusiasm for the adoption of these technologies is tempered by ethical dilemmas regarding resource allocation, provision of care, communication with patients and other providers, and other potential pitfalls. In the present work, we discuss bioethical implications of novel neurotechnologies for medical practice. In particular, we examine the implications of neurotechnological advancement through the lens of professional communication. Emerging challenges within this domain are presented in the context of physician interactions with four key partners: (i) patients; (ii) other physicians; (iii) industry; and (iv) society-at-large. Anticipated issues as well as mitigation strategies are discussed as they relate to communication with these stakeholders.

In most U.S. jurisdictions, clinicians providing informal “curbside” consults are protected from medical malpractice liability due to the absence of a doctor-patient relationship. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court case, Warren v. Dinter, offers the opportunity to reassess whether the majority rule is truly serving the best interests of patients.

Background: Stroke patients of lower socioeconomic status have worse outcomes. It remains poorly understood whether this is due to illness severity or personal or health system barriers. We explored the experiences of stroke patients with financial barriers in a qualitative descriptive pilot study, seeking to capture perceived challenges that interfere with their poststroke health and recovery. Methods: We interviewed six adults with a history of stroke and financial barriers in Alberta, Canada, inquiring about their: (1) experiences after stroke; (2) experience of financial barriers; (3) perceived reasons for financial barriers; (4) health consequences of financial barriers; and (5) mechanisms for coping with financial barriers. Two reviewers analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis. Results: The participants developed new or worsened financial circumstances as a consequence of stroke-related disability. Poststroke impairments and financial barriers took a toll on their mental health. They struggled to access several aspects of long-term poststroke care, including allied health professional services, medications, and proper nutrition. They described opportunity costs and tradeoffs when accessing health services. In several cases, they were unaware of health resources available to them and were hesitant to disclose their struggles to their physicians and even their families. Conclusion: Some patients with financial barriers perceive challenges to accessing various aspects of poststroke care. They may have inadequate knowledge of resources available to them and may not disclose their concerns to their health care team. This suggests that providers themselves might consider asking stroke patients about financial barriers to optimize their long-term poststroke care.

Background: Patients who leave hospital against medical advice (AMA) may be at risk of adverse health outcomes, medical complications, and readmission. In this study, we examined the characteristics of patients who left AMA after traumatic brain injury (TBI), their rates of follow-up visits, and readmission. Methods: We retrospectively studied 106 consecutive patients who left the tertiary trauma center AMA (1.8% of all admitted patients with a TBI). Preinjury health and social issues, mechanism of injury, computed tomography findings, and injury markers were collected. They were correlated to compliance with follow-up visits and unplanned emergency room (ER) visits and readmission rates. Results: The most prevalent premorbid health or social-related issues were alcohol abuse (33%) and assault as a mechanism of trauma (33%). Only 15 (14.2%) subjects came to follow-up visit for their TBI. Sixteen (15.1%) of the 106 subjects had multiple readmissions and/or ER visits related to substance abuse. Seven (6.6%) had multiple readmissions or ER visits with psychiatric reasons. Those patients with multiple readmissions and ER visits showed in higher proportion preexisting neurological condition (p=0.027), homelessness (p=0.012), previous neurosurgery (p=0.014), preexisting encephalomalacia (p=0.011), and had a higher ISS score (p=0.014) than those who were not readmitted multiple times. Conclusions: The significantly increased risks of multiple follow-up visits and readmission among TBI patients who leave hospital AMA are related to a premorbid vulnerability and psychosocial issues. Clinicians should target AMA TBI patients with premorbid vulnerability for discharge transition interventions.

A la lumière de la proportion croissante de personnes âgées recourant aux services de médecins, cette recherche tente de déterminer dans quelle mesure les médecins qui traitent les personnes âgées sont différents de leurs collègues qui ne le font pas. Des études précédentes ont porté sur certaines facettes de cette problématique, notamment en ce qui concerne les caractéristiques des médecins, leurs comportements dans la pratique, leurs attitudes et leurs convictions générales. Cette étude examine à nouveau et de façon systématique ces différentes catégories, à partir d'un groupe de médecins, en utilisant une procédure de régression multiple. Les résultats laissent entendre que les médecins qui suivent des patients âgés dans les domaines de la chirurgie orthopédique, de la chirurgie générale et de l'ophthalmologie, ne sont pas vraiment différents de leurs collègues qui traitent des patients plusjeunes. On explore également dans cette étude d'autres explications concernant le choix des patients âgés. On se demande aussi quelles seraient les implications pour les patients âgés de choisir un médecin doté d'une expertise dans les soins gériatriques.

It is commonly accepted that a good practicioner-patient relationship favours good patient co-operation with treatments. However, medical literature and our own research have led us to a more pertinent approach. The body and the mind cannot be dissociated in humans and numerous observations show that therapeutic results are favoured by the human relationship. (Given similar techniques, biological answers differ). Now concerning the environment, the question is:

“How can the clinical framework integrate this research?”