BackgroundPatients have the right to equal, respectful treatment. Nowadays, one third of patient complaints concern health care staff’s behavior towards patients. Ethically safe care requires ethical competence, which has been addressed as a core competence in physiotherapy. It has been defined in terms of character strength, ethical awareness, moral judgment skills in decision-making, and willingness to do good. The purpose of this study was to analyze the ethical competence of practicing physiotherapists.MethodA self-evaluation instrument (Physiotherapist’s Ethical Competence Evaluation Tool) based on (...) an analysis of a concept “ethical competence” was constructed in 2016 and physiotherapists (n = 839), working in public health services or private practice responded to the questionnaire.ResultsBased on the results, most of the physiotherapists evaluated themselves highly ethically competent in all areas of ethical competence, subscales being Strength, Awareness, Skills and Will. Willingness to do good was evaluated as highest, while character strength, including the strength to support ethical processes and speak on behalf of the patient, was evaluated the lowest. Physiotherapists most commonly consult a colleague when encountering an ethical problem. Other methods for problem solving are not very familiar, neither are the international or national ethical codes of conduct.ConclusionsThis was the first attempt to assess all aspects of ethical competence empirically in a clinical environment in physiotherapy, using a novel self-evaluation instrument. Even if physiotherapists evaluate themselves as competent in ethics, further exploration is needed for ethical awareness. Also the patients’ viewpoints about ethically competent care should be considered, to better ensure ethical safety of the patient. (shrink)

BackgroundDespite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase ‘ethical challenge(s)’ appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature.MethodsRapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in any context, extracting data on definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ (...) in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021.Results393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to ‘ethical challenge(s)’ within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study.ConclusionsOnly 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research. (shrink)