How to Analyze Organizational Ethics:

The Case of Resource Allocation

Philip Boyle, Ph.D.

Vice President, Mission & Ethics

www.CHE.ORG/ETHICS

Etiquette

• Press * 6 to mute;

• Press # 6 to un-mute

• Keep your phone on mute unless you are dialoging with the presenter

• Never place phone on hold

• If you do not want to be called on please check the red mood button on the lower left of screen

Goals for today’s conversation

• How to analyze a case– Examining policies– Examining culture (gap between policy &

practice)

• Resource allocation– Why it is a key issue in org ethics?– What marks a defensible resource

allocation?

Importance of resource allocation?

• Resources are at means to accomplish mission

• Expresses the moral character of organization– Policies proposed by management,

approved by board, carried out by colleagues

Resource allocation

• Happenstance or intentional

• Different goals– Cost containment, appropriate care

• Different practical responses– Don’t ask, don’t tell– Tell, but don’t ask– Tell, and ask

Done everywhere--micro• Triage• Admission & transfer• Futility• Purchasing• Practice parameters• Formulary• Staffing patterns• Equipment

Micro – First come, first serve

• presupposes access to info

– Status: based on society’s sympathies– Merit: past & future contribution– Quality of life / prognosis: discriminatory?– Neediest/worst-off– Age: natural life span– Lottery: only if all things are equal– Those who can afford it– Alternatives

• Forfeiture • Gate keeping

What are essential elements of VBDM?

Why use it?

• Consistent evidence of supporting Mission

• Evidence of Participation and Respect for Persons

• Evidence that the Spirit has guided

• Checks & Balances

• Fosters habit of moral reasoning

When to use it?Formally

• Decision that affect significant interests and populations

• Opening Closing Services

• Significant HR issues

• Development of Strategic management tools

• Informally—all moral decisions

1 of 10 high LOS & $1 million+

• Healthy 78-year-old man in ER with turkey bone in throat

• ER MD ruptures patient’s esophagus ruptured.• Surgeon attempted several repairs• Patient became septic; acute liver and kidney

failure and respiratory failure and required mechanical ventilation and hemodialysis.

1 of 10 high LOS & $1 million+

• Patient was restless, grimacing, and neurologically unresponsive. The staff believed he should be transferred out of the ICU because he was “moribund.”

• ICU staff was aware that for rupture of the esophagus the literature reflects nearly a 100 % mortality rate.

• Surgeon has had good-but unpublished-results with patients of this sort; he regularly defends his potion with other consultants who maintain the patient is likely to expire early on during the course of treatment.

Policy• Purpose: To define assessment criteria (that constitute safe parameters) for transfer or

discharge of patients from a critical care unit. • • 1.Vital signs are assessed as stable for the individual patient as agreed upon by the

attending physician and nurse caring for the patient four (4) hours prior to transfer.• 2. Neurological status is assessed to be either the patient's normal preadmission level or at

a level of stability that does not require further critical care nursing interventions for four (4) hours prior to transfer.

• 3. Respiratory status is assessed to be such that the patient is able to maintain adequate ventilation and oxygenation without mechanical assistance four (4) hours prior to transfer.

• 4. Cardiovascular status is assessed to be such that the patient's tissue perfusion is adequate.

• 5. Cardiovascular status is assessed to be such that all life-threatening dysrhythmias have resolved to the point where certain IV cardiac medications which are given only in critical care units are no longer necessary to control the dysrhythmia or regulate vascular tone four (4) hours prior to transfer.

• 6. Fluid and electrolyte status is assessed to be within reasonable limits for the individual patient four (4) hours prior to transfer.

• 7. Any patient may be discharged from the critical care unit who is determined to be moribund in the assessment of the attending physician and for whom no extraordinary medical measures will be used to prolong life or prevent death.

Phase I: Preparation• Number of persons/groups impacted

– Does it affect a department or the institution?• Duration of the impact

– Does the impact last a few years or the span of the ministry?• Depth or weight of impact

– Does the question affect the entire ministry or a portion of it?

• Closeness to Core Values – Does the question directly jeopardize a value?

• Degree of complexity• Past commitments

– Does the question positively or negatively affect past commitments?

• Relationship to strategic direction

Whose interests are affected?• Based on the nature of the issue, what other individuals or groups need

to be part of the process?

• What is the nature and frequency of the connection between the groups and the question?

• What departments will be affected?

• What departments might have insight?

• What other entities will be affected by the decision?

• Who would have insights to the Mission and tradition as it applies to this decision?

• Who should participate?

Phase II: Decision Making

1.Pray, reflect, identify question, and clarify authority of decision-making group.

• Groups scope of authority

• Ground rules for participation

• Issue identification

Phase II: Decision Making2. Determine primary and secondary communities

of concern and their interests.

• While there may be a large community of concern, not everyone in that community has the same interests. The decision-making group should assess the manner and degree to which a sub-community will be affected positively and/or negatively.

• The decision-making group should consider how those who are poor and vulnerable will be affected by the decision.

Phase II: Decision Making

3. Pinpoint and gather needed information and data.

• What essential data have been gathered already?

• What essential data have yet to be gathered?

• Once data are gathered, does the group agree on its relevance, accuracy, and completeness?

Resource allocation

• Formal analysis– Are the definitions clear?– Is it clear about who should decide?– Are there checks and balances?– Is the resource allocation just applied only

to the vulnerable dying or to all instances?

Allocating Resources

• Formal & informal mechanisms– Is informal still used?– Are they applied evenly? Which resources

should be managed?

Measurement employed• Medical or social?

• What unit is measured? Single intervention or episode?

• Effectiveness: effective for what, how long, who judges?

• Severity of illness

• Costs: which should count? Length?

• Social measurements?

Resource allocationInformal analysis– Is the policy evenly applied or are there

variable interpretations?– How does the mechanism work?

• Was there a previous informal mechanism?• Who devised & when is it used?• What is the purpose of the mechanism

– What are the goals of the mechanism?• Whose goals?• Does it meet the goal?

Phase II: Decision Making4. Identify key moral commitments and values, as well

as conflicts among them.

• Identify the question in terms of trade-offs between one or more values. For example, consider your decision in terms of human dignity and identify the dignity trade-offs in the various options that you are weighing.

• Identify the major consequences of this dignity trade-off

in terms of individuals and groups; in terms of long- and short-term burdens and benefits; or in terms of money, morale and relationships, etc.

Phase II: Decision Making5. Establish priorities among commitments and

values.

• The moral commitments and values that deserve priority will flow from consideration of strategic goals/objectives, core values, historical commitments, the broader religious tradition, and special circumstances.

• List each priority and provide the rationale for why it is a priority.

Phase II: Decision Making6. Develop options that support the priorities.

• Identify options that promote the moral commitments and values deserving priority.

• Examine carefully the major options and evaluate the positive and negative consequences of these options on the identified priorities.

• Consider not only the burdens and benefits of the preferred option but all of the options.

• Do any of the options preserve and protect a majority of the identified priorities?

• Due process – notice, in this case information why and

what alternatives exist– means of meaningful appeal– consistency in judgment and action– transparency to the public and all those

who will affected by the choices– checks & balances

Fair allocation A process that is marked by the following

qualities:• It is viewed as fair• It allows for transparency for others to see

how the decision was made• It is shown to adjust its decision as new facts

come to light• It reflects that the interests of the institution

have been served and not just the interests of a few.

Phase II: Decision Making7. In silence reflect and then listen to viewpoints.

• To ensure that the Spirit has guided the discussion and to promote the voice of any reservations or opposition, a quiet time of reflection should be offered during which group members consider the discussion in light of the faith tradition and personal conviction.

• Consider the following reflective questions:– Have I listened to the facts and appreciated the viewpoints of others?– Have I opened myself to the workings of the Spirit?– Have I sought the good of the entire ministry and then the particular

good of others? • Has input been elicited from all decision makers?

Phase II: Decision Making

8. Gain consensus on decision.

• Invite all members to express which option should be pursued and why. Discussion should be held until every member has had an opportunity to voice an opinion.

• At the conclusion of the participatory decision making, estimate if

a consensus exists, and if not, identify the points of disagreement and allow for additional conversation for clarification.

• If a consensus is reached, identify the values that will suffer because of the choice. Discuss how to mitigate the harms.

Phase III: Follow Through

Assign accountabilities to specific persons for each component to be realized.

• Build a plan for monitoring and reporting with measurable outcomes.

• Build a communication plan for community of concern with key messages and methods.

• Build a plan that connects to the larger meaning and purpose.

Conclusion

• Case analysis– Formal—examine policy—systematically!– Informal—examine practices/culture

• Resource allocations– Applied uniformly– Open process—transparency – Clear who decides– Appeals process