Although intentional ingestions occur in a small subset of patients, DFBI utilizes significant hospital and fiscal resources. The startling economic impact of caring for these patients was demonstrated in a cost analysis at a large academic center in Rhode Island. It found 33 patients with repeated ingestions accounted for over 300 endoscopies in an 8-year period culminating in a total hospitalization cost of 2 million dollars per year.5 Another study estimated the average cost of a patient with DFBI per hospital visit to be $6,616 in the United States with an average length of stay of 5.6 days.6 The cost burden is largely caused by the repetitive nature of the clinical presentation and involvement of multiple disciplines, including emergency medicine, gastroenterology, anesthesia, psychiatry, social work, security services, and in some cases, otolaryngology, pulmonology, and surgery.
In addition to endoscopy, an inpatient admission for DFBI centers around preventing repeated ingestions. This entails constant observation by security or a sitter, limiting access to objects through restraints or room modifications, and psychiatry consultation for management of the underlying psychiatric disorder. Studies show this management approach rarely succeeds in preventing recurrent ingestions.6 Interestingly, data also shows inpatient psychiatric admission is not beneficial in preventing recurrent DFBI and can paradoxically increase the frequency of swallowing behavior in some patients.6 This patient failed multiple inpatient treatment programs and was noncompliant with outpatient therapies. Given the costly burden to the health care system and propensity of repeated behavior, should this patient continue to receive endoscopies? Would it ever be justifiable to forgo endoscopic retrieval?
Dr. Vijaya Rao
One of the fundamental principles of medical ethics is beneficence, supporting the notion that all providers should act in the best interest of the patient. Adults may make poor or self-destructive choices, but that does not preclude our moral obligation to treat them. Patients with substance abuse disorders may repeatedly use emergency room services for acute intoxication and overdose treatment. An emergency department physician would not withhold Narcan from a patient simply because of the frequency of repeated overdoses. A similar rationale could be applied to patients with DFBI – they should undergo endoscopy if they are accepting of the risks/benefits of repeated procedures. Given that this patient’s repeated ingestions are suicide attempts, it could be argued that not removing the object would make a clinician complicit with a patient’s suicide attempt or intent of self-harm.
From an alternative vantage point, patients with repeated DFBI have an increased risk of complications with repeated endoscopy, especially when performed emergently. Patients may have an increased risk of aspiration because of insufficient preoperative fasting, and attempted removal of ingested needles and other sharp objects carries a high risk of penetrating trauma, bleeding, and perforation. The patient’s swallowing history predicts a high likelihood of repeat ingestion which, over time, makes subsequent endoscopies seem futile. Endoscopic treatment does not address the underlying problem and only serves as a temporary fix to bridge the patient to their next ingestion. Furthermore, the utilization of resources is substantial – namely, the repeated emergency use of anesthesia and operating room and endoscopy staff, as well as the psychiatry, surgical, internal medicine, and gastroenterology services. Inevitably, treatment of a patient such as this diverts limited health care resources away from other patients who may have equally or more pressing medical needs.
Despite the seemingly futile nature of these procedures and strain on resources, it would be difficult from a medicolegal perspective to justify withholding endoscopy. In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act was enacted that requires anyone presenting to an emergency department to be stabilized and treated.7 In this particular patient case, an ethics consultation was obtained and recommended that the patient continue to undergo endoscopy. However, the team also suggested that a multidisciplinary meeting with ethics, the primary and procedural teams, and the hospital’s medicolegal department be held to further elucidate a plan for future admissions and to decide if or when it may be appropriate to withhold invasive procedures. This case was presented at our weekly gastroenterology grand rounds, and procedural guidelines were reviewed. Given the size and nature of most of the objects the patient ingests, we reviewed that it would be safe in the majority of scenarios to wait until the morning for removal if called overnight – providing some relief to those on call while minimizing utilization of emergency anesthesia resources as well as operating room and endoscopy staff.
Caring for these patients is challenging as providers may feel frustrated and angry after repeated admissions. The patient may sense the low morale from providers and feel judged for their actions. It is theorized that this leads to repeated ingestions as a defense mechanism and a means of acting out.1 Additionally, friction can develop between teams as there is a common perception that psychiatry is not “doing enough” to treat the psychiatric disorder to prevent recurrences.8
In conclusion, DFBIs occur in a small number of patients with psychiatric disorders, but account for a large utilization of health care recourses. Gastroenterologists have an ethical and legal obligation to provide treatment including repeat endoscopies as long as the therapeutic benefit of the procedure outweighs risks. A multidisciplinary approach with individualized care plans can help prevent recurrent hospitalizations and procedures which may, in turn, improve outcomes and reduce health care costs.1 Until the patient and clinicians can successfully mitigate the psychiatric and social factors perpetuating repeated ingestions, gastroenterologists will continue to provide endoscopic management. Individual cases should be discussed with the hospital’s ethics and medicolegal teams for further guidance on deferring endoscopic treatment in cases of medically refractory psychological disease.
Dr. Sims is a gastroenterology fellow in the section of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, department of internal medicine, University of Chicago Medicine. Dr. Rao is assistant professor in the section of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, department of internal medicine, University of Chicago Medicine. They had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Bangash F et al. Cureus. 2021 Feb;13(2):e13179. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13179
2. Palese C et al. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2012 July;8(7):485-6
3. Gitlin GF et al. Psychosomatics, 2007 March;48(2):162-6. doi: 10.1176/appi.psy.48.2.162
4. Palta R et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 March;69(3):426-33. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.072
5. Huang BL et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Nov;8(11):941-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.07.013
