BackgroundAmidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality (...) of CECons.MethodsGuided by Levac et al’s (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings.ResultsNine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified – the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations.ConclusionThis review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy.To advance a contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive, program specific assessment tool to assess CECons, clear structural and competency guidelines must be established in the curation of CECons programs, to evaluate their true efficacy and maintain clinical, legal and ethical standards. (shrink)

The design and implementation of clinical ethics support is attracting increasing attention. Often, the characteristics and aims of clinical ethics support are translated into practice in a top-down, programmatic manner. These characteristics and aims then remain a constant feature of the clinical ethics support functions within the organisation. We argue that the characteristics of clinical ethics support should be reflected in the implementation strategy. Inspired by dialogical, pragmatic and hermeneutic perspectives on clinical ethics support in general and moral case deliberation (...) in particular, we argue for a dialogical approach to implementing clinical ethics support, based on open, ongoing discussion with healthcare professionals about how they conceive clinical ethics support. Based on research and experience with various moral case deliberation implementation projects in mental healthcare, we present a theoretical framework for dialogical implementation and heuristic guidelines for implementing moral case deliberation in mental healthcare, which take into account the dialogical characteristics of moral case deliberation and some specific features of mental healthcare. (shrink)

The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities has created a quality attestation process for clinical ethics consultants; the pilot phase of reviewing portfolios has begun. One aspect of the QA process which is particularly challenging is assessing the interpersonal skills of individual clinical ethics consultants. We propose that using case simulation to evaluate clinical ethics consultants is an approach that can meet this need provided clear standards for assessment are identified. To this end, we developed the Assessing Clinical Ethics Skills (...) tool, which identifies and specifies specific behaviors that a clinical ethics consultant should demonstrate in an ethics case simulation. The aim is for the clinical ethics consultant or student to use a videotaped case simulation, along with the ACES tool scored by a trained rater, to demonstrate their competence as part of their QA portfolio. The development and piloting of the tool is described. (shrink)

Ethics consultation is a familiar concept to clinicians, and there are site-specific guidelines detailing procedures for both obtaining and performing these consults. Evaluative data about clinician experiences with ethics consults are becoming more extensive but information about family experiences, especially parent perceptions, of the same is lacking. Without a better understanding of those family experiences, an evidence base for ethics consultations cannot be built. This manuscript describes the reasons for obtaining this necessary information, details prior research designed to obtain knowledge (...) about family experiences with pediatric ethics consultations, and suggests mechanisms for acquiring it. (shrink)

BackgroundThere is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation. Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation.MethodsA North European field survey (...) among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used.ResultsAll outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%–97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. ‘Better interactions with patient/family’ emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents.ConclusionsThe findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as moral reflexivity and moral attitude outcomes, should still be included. In the future, a combination of empirical findings and normative reflection will contribute to the revision of the instrument. (shrink)

Clinical ethics support, in particular Moral Case Deliberation, aims to support health care providers to manage ethically difficult situations. However, there is a lack of evaluation instruments regarding outcomes of clinical ethics support in general and regarding Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) in particular. There also is a lack of clarity and consensuses regarding which MCD outcomes are beneficial. In addition, MCD outcomes might be context-sensitive. Against this background, there is a need for a standardised but flexible outcome evaluation instrument. The (...) aim of this study was to develop a multi-contextual evaluation instrument measuring health care providers’ experiences and perceived importance of outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation. (shrink)

Ethics designates a structured process by which important human values and meanings of life are understood and tackled. Therein, the ability to discuss openly and reflect on (aka deliberation) understandings of moral problems, on solutions to these problems, and to explore what a meaningful resolution could amount to is highly valued. However, the indicators of what constitutes a high-quality ethical deliberation remain vague and unclear. This article proposes and develops a pragmatist approach to evaluate the quality of deliberation. Deliberation features (...) three important moments: (1) broadening and deepening the understanding of the situation, (2) envisioning action scenarios, (3) coming to a judgment based on the comparative evaluation of scenarios. In this paper, we propose seven criteria to evaluate ethical deliberations: (1) collaborative diversity, (2) experiential literacy, (3) organization of experiences, (4) reflective capacity to instrumentalize the experiences of others, (5) interactional creativity, (6) openness of agents, (7) quality of the reformulation of scenarios. These criteria are explained and applied to the three moments of deliberation. Based on these criteria, three kinds of outcomes for deliberations are identified and discussed: good ethical deliberations, partial ethical deliberations, bad ethical deliberations. Our proposal will guide researchers and practitioners interested in the evaluation of the quality of ethical deliberations. It provides a reference tool that allows them to identify the possible limitations of a deliberation and to implement actions aimed at correcting these limitations in order to achieve the desired qualitative objectives. (shrink)

Background:Clinical ethics committees have been broadly implemented in university hospitals, general hospitals and nursing homes. To ensure the quality of ethics consultations, evaluation should be...

The executive board of the Academy for Ethics in Medicine and two AEM working groups formulated standards and recommendations for clinical ethics consultation in 2010, 2011, and 2013. These guidelines comply with the international standards like those set by the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. There is no empirical data available yet that could indicate whether these standards and recommendations have been implemented in German hospitals. This desideratum is addressed in the present study. We contacted 1.858 German hospitals between (...) September 2013 and January 2014. A follow-up survey was conducted between October 2014 and January 2015. The data of the initial survey and the follow-up survey were merged and evaluated. The statements of the participants were compared with the standards and recommendations. The standards of the AEM concerning the tasks of clinical ethics consultation are employed by a majority of participants of the study. Almost all of these participants document their consultation activities by means of protocols or entries in the patient file. There are deviations from the recommendations of the AEM working groups regarding the drafting of statutes, activity reports, and financial support. The activities of clinical ethics consultation predominantly comply with the standards of the AEM and recommendations for the documentation. The recommendations for evaluation should be improved in practice. This applies particularly for activity reports in order to evaluate the activities. Internal evaluation could take place accordingly. (shrink)

Evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) has attracted considerable interest in recent decades. However, few evaluation studies are explicit about normative presuppositions which underlie the goals and the research design of CESS evaluation. In this paper, we provide an account of normative premises of different approaches to CESS evaluation and argue that normativity should be a focus of considerations when designing and conducting evaluation research of CESS. In a first step, we present three different approaches to CESS evaluation from (...) published literature. Next to a brief sketch of the well-established approaches of ‘descriptive evaluation’ and ‘evaluation of outcomes’, we will give a more detailed description of a third approach to evaluation—‘reconstructing quality norms of CESS’—which is explicit about the normative presuppositions of its research (design). In the subsequent section, we will analyse the normative premises of each of the three approaches to CESS evaluation. We will conclude with a brief argument for more sensitivity towards the normativity of CESS and its evaluation research. (shrink)

Evaluating clinical ethics support services has been hailed as important research task. At the same time, there is considerable debate about how to evaluate CESS appropriately. The criticism, which has been aired, refers to normative as well as empirical aspects of evaluating CESS. In this paper, we argue that a first necessary step for progress is to better understand the intervention in CESS. Tools of complex intervention research methodology may provide relevant means in this respect. In a first step, we (...) introduce principles of “complex intervention research” and show how CESS fulfil the criteria of “complex interventions”. In a second step, we develop a generic “conceptual framework” for “ethics consultation on request” as standard for many forms of ethics consultation in clinical ethics practice. We apply this conceptual framework to the model of “bioethics mediation” to make explicit the specific structural and procedural elements of this form of ethics consultation on request. In a final step we conduct a comparative analysis of two different types of CESS, which have been subject to evaluation research: “proactive ethics consultation” and “moral case deliberation” and discuss implications for evaluating both types of CESS. To make explicit different premises of implemented CESS interventions by means of conceptual frameworks can inform the search for sound empirical evaluation of CESS. In addition, such work provides a starting point for further reflection about what it means to offer “good” CESS. (shrink)

A Second level Master in “Clinical Bioethics Consultation” has been organized in Italy to offer an opportunity to offer an adequate training to carry out an ethics consultation in different health fields. The master has been promoted and realized by different institutions: Catholic University of Sacred Hearth in Rome, Insubria University in Varese, “Federico II” University in Naples, Lanza Foundation in Padua and the Local Health and Social Care Unit n.7 in Veneto Region. The aim of the master is train (...) ethics consultants to offer help regarding a correct decision, which will take by others. The choice must be as much as possible shared between patient, family and health care team. Ethics consultation can be primarily request by the physicians, nurses and health care staff such as support about a choice that wants to be the most appropriate and to clarify a dilemma between different options. Secondly an ethics consultation can be demand by the patient and the family members to find a clarification about their dilemmas and future choices. Also the administrative staff could ask the consultation, when it need to better explain ad example about a specific clinical case or a question concerned the health policy. (shrink)

Questions concerning the parent/ patient’s autonomy are seen as one of the most important reasons for requesting Ethics Consultations. Respecting parent/ patient’s autonomy also means respecting the patient’s wishes. But those wishes may be controversial and sometimes even go beyond legal requirements. The objective of this case series of 32 ECs was to illustrate ethically challenging parent / patients’ wishes during the first stages of life and how the principle of patient’s autonomy was handled. The case series has a qualitative (...) retrospective approach. A documentary sheet was designed de novo and information was gained from EC minutes and medical charts. The cases originate from the following specialties: reproductive medicine, obstetrics and neonatology as well as two interdisciplinary cases. Through the structured EC minutes aspects of patient / parents’ wishes could be identified explicitly. Overall the patient / parents’ wishes were not supported in 61% of the cases. Central reasons for rejection of patient / parent wishes were mainly the protection of the best interest of the unborn / new-born child as well as the rejection of clinical approaches that were regarded as being substandard treatment. The study shows that treatment decisions in reproductive medicine, obstetrics and neonatology raise substantial ethical questions leading to the request for ethics consultation. The systematic case series presented here gives insight into the ethical reflection carried out to support the clinicians in their decision-making and counselling. It shows that clinicians, after using ethics consultation, make deliberate decisions that do not “automatically” fulfil the treatment requests of the patients and parents. (shrink)

Background Research on the impact of ethics reflection groups (ERG) (also called moral case deliberations (MCD)) is complex and scarce. Within a larger study, two years of ERG sessions have been used as an intervention to stimulate ethical reflection about the use of coercive measures. We studied changes in: employees’ attitudes regarding the use of coercion, team competence, user involvement, team cooperation and the handling of disagreement in teams. Methods We used panel data in a longitudinal design study to measure (...) variation in survey scores from multidisciplinary employees from seven departments within three Norwegian mental health care institutions at three time points (T0–T1–T2). Mixed models were used to account for dependence of data in persons who participated more than once. Results In total, 1068 surveys (from 817 employees who did and did not participate in ERG) were included in the analyses. Of these, 7.6% (N = 62) responded at three points in time, 15.5% (N = 127) at two points, and 76.8% (N = 628) once. On average, over time, respondents who participated in ERG viewed coercion more strongly as offending (p < 0.05). Those who presented a case in the ERG sessions showed lower scores on User Involvement (p < 0.001), Team Cooperation (p < 0.01) and Constructive Disagreement (p < 0.01). We observed significant differences in outcomes between individuals from different departments, as well as between different professions. Initial significant changes due to frequency of participation in ERG and case presentation in ERG did not remain statistically significant after adjustment for Departments and Professions. Differences were generally small in absolute terms, possibly due to the low amount of longitudinal data. Conclusions This study measured specific intervention-related outcome parameters for describing the impact of clinical ethics support (CES). Structural implementation of ERGs or MCDs seems to contribute to employees reporting a more critical attitude towards coercion. Ethics support is a complex intervention and studying changes over time is complex in itself. Several recommendations for strengthening the outcomes of future CES evaluation studies are discussed. CES evaluation studies are important, since—despite the intrinsic value of participating in ERG or MCD—CES inherently aims, and should aim, at improving clinical practices. (shrink)

Medizinethische Entscheidungsfindungsmodelle müssen nachweisen können, weshalb die mit ihnen getroffenen Entscheidungen richtig oder zumindest „belastbar“ sind. Hierfür sind theoretische Rechtfertigungsansätze aus der Ethik unverzichtbar. Der Klinischen Ethik wird aber mitunter ein Mangel an theoretischer Fundierung vorgeworfen. Um diesem Vorwurf entgegenzutreten, soll unter Bezugnahme auf ein Projekt der Klinischen Ethik („METAP“) die ethische Unterstützung in Form der ethischen Fallbesprechung und der Ethikkonsultation mittels Prinzipienethik und Diskursethik gerechtfertigt werden. Prinzipienethik und Diskursethik können einander über das Medium der ethischen Fallbesprechung oder Ethikkonsultation fruchtbar (...) ergänzen. So können einige theoretische und praktische Schwächen der beiden Ansätze durch den jeweils anderen abgefedert werden. Die Diskursethik übernimmt bspw. die Sicherung der ethischen Gültigkeit von moralischen Entscheidungen bzw. Handlungsnormen und vermindert dadurch ein Rechtfertigungsdefizit, welches bei einem rein prinzipienorientierten Verfahren auftritt. Umgekehrt antwortet die Prinzipienethik u. a. auf Fragen der ethischen Angemessenheit und dient v. a. der adäquaten Einzelfallentscheidung. Durch die Integration des einen Ansatzes in den anderen ist eine umfassendere Rechtfertigungsleistung erzielbar als bei einem alleinigen Einsatz von Prinzipienethik oder Diskursethik. Selbst wenn einige Herausforderungen bestehen bleiben und auch das integrierte Modell moralische Dissense nicht immer verhindern kann, vermag es durch seine „doppelte“ Absicherung (Prinzipien und Diskurs) ein praktisches Vertrauen in die getroffene ethische Entscheidung zu stärken und so der Klinischen Ethik mehr „Robustheit“ zu geben, als sie bisher besitzt. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungMedizinethische Entscheidungsfindungsmodelle müssen nachweisen können, weshalb die mit ihnen getroffenen Entscheidungen richtig oder zumindest „belastbar“ sind. Hierfür sind theoretische Rechtfertigungsansätze aus der Ethik unverzichtbar. Der Klinischen Ethik wird aber mitunter ein Mangel an theoretischer Fundierung vorgeworfen. Um diesem Vorwurf entgegenzutreten, soll unter Bezugnahme auf ein Projekt der Klinischen Ethik („METAP“) die ethische Unterstützung in Form der ethischen Fallbesprechung und der Ethikkonsultation mittels Prinzipienethik und Diskursethik gerechtfertigt werden. Prinzipienethik und Diskursethik können einander über das Medium der ethischen Fallbesprechung oder Ethikkonsultation fruchtbar (...) ergänzen. So können einige theoretische und praktische Schwächen der beiden Ansätze durch den jeweils anderen abgefedert werden. Die Diskursethik übernimmt bspw. die Sicherung der ethischen Gültigkeit von moralischen Entscheidungen bzw. Handlungsnormen und vermindert dadurch ein Rechtfertigungsdefizit, welches bei einem rein prinzipienorientierten Verfahren auftritt. Umgekehrt antwortet die Prinzipienethik u. a. auf Fragen der ethischen Angemessenheit und dient v. a. der adäquaten Einzelfallentscheidung. Durch die Integration des einen Ansatzes in den anderen ist eine umfassendere Rechtfertigungsleistung erzielbar als bei einem alleinigen Einsatz von Prinzipienethik oder Diskursethik. Selbst wenn einige Herausforderungen bestehen bleiben und auch das integrierte Modell moralische Dissense nicht immer verhindern kann, vermag es durch seine „doppelte“ Absicherung (Prinzipien und Diskurs) ein praktisches Vertrauen in die getroffene ethische Entscheidung zu stärken und so der Klinischen Ethik mehr „Robustheit“ zu geben, als sie bisher besitzt. (shrink)

A central task for clinical ethics consultants and committees (CEC) is providing analysis of, and advice on, prospective or retrospective clinical cases. However, several kinds of biases may threaten the integrity, relevance or quality of the CEC's deliberation. Bias should be identified and, if possible, reduced or counteracted. This paper provides a systematic classification of kinds of bias that may be present in a CEC's case deliberation. Six kinds of bias are discussed, with examples, as to their significance and risk (...) factors. Possible remedies are suggested. The potential for bias is greater when the case deliberation is performed by an individual ethics consultant than when an entire clinical ethics committee is involved. (shrink)

There is an increasing need for quality in ethics consultations, though there have been significant achievements in the United States and Europe. However, fundamental concerns that place the profession in jeopardy are discussed from the perspective of the U.S. in a manner that will be helpful for other countries. The descriptive component of the essay (the first two points) explains the achievements in ethics quality (illustrated by the IntegratedEthics program of the Veterans Health Administration) and the progress on standards and (...) competencies for ethics consultations (represented by the Core Competencies of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities). Based on these achievements, the analytical component of the essay (the final three points) identifies and seeks to resolve three fundamental concerns (with increasing levels of importance) that compromise quality in ethics consultations: standards of quality; professionalism; and credentialing. The analysis argues for clearer standards of quality in ethics consultation and urges further professionalism by explaining the need for the following: interpreting the ASBH core competencies in a normative manner, developing a Code of Ethics, and clarifying the meaning of best practices. However, the most serious concern that threatens quality in ethics consultations is the lack of a credentialing process. This concern can be resolved effectively by developing an independent Ethics Consultation Accreditation Council to accredit and standardize graduate degree programs, fellowship experiences, and qualifying examinations. This credentialing process is indispensable if we are to strategically enhance quality in ethics consultations. (shrink)

BackgroundCase consultation performed by clinical ethics committees (CECs) is a complex activity which should be evaluated. Several evaluation studies have reported stakeholder satisfaction in single institutions. The present study was conducted nationwide and compares clinicians’ evaluations on a range of aspects with the CEC’s own evaluation.MethodsProspective questionnaire study involving case consultations at 19 Norwegian CECs for 1 year, where consultations were evaluated by CECs and clinicians who had participated.ResultsEvaluations of 64 case consultations were received. Cases were complex with multiple ethical (...) problems intertwined. Clinicians rated the average CEC consult highly, being both satisfied with the process and perceiving it to be useful across a number of aspects. CEC evaluations corresponded well with those of clinicians in a large majority of cases. Having next of kin/patients present was experienced as predominantly positive, though practised by only half of the CECs. The educational function of the consult was evaluated more positively when the CEC used a systematic deliberation method.ConclusionsCEC case consultation was found to be a useful service. The study is also a favourable evaluation of the Norwegian CEC system, implying that it is feasible to implement well-functioning CECs on a large scale. There are good reasons to involve the stakeholders in the consultations as a main rule. (shrink)

Background: Clinical ethics support services have been advocated in recent decades. In clinical practice, clinical ethics support services are often requested for difficult decisions near the end of life. However, their contribution to improving healthcare has been questioned and demands for evaluation have been put forward. Research indicates that there are considerable challenges associated with defining adequate outcomes for clinical ethics support services. In this systematic review, we report findings of qualitative studies and surveys, which have been conducted to evaluate (...) clinical ethics support services near the end of life. Methods: Electronic databases and other sources were queried from 1970 to May 2018. Two authors screened studies independently. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For each arm of the review, an individual synthesis was performed. Prospero ID: CRD42016036241. Ethical Considerations: Ethical approval is not needed as it is a systematic review of published literature. Results: In all, 2088 hits on surveys and 2786 on qualitative studies were found. After screening, nine surveys and four qualitative studies were included. Survey studies report overall positive findings using a very wide and heterogeneous range of outcomes. Negative results were reported only occasionally. However, methodological quality and conceptual justification of used outcomes was often weak and limits generalizability of results. Conclusion: Evidence points to positive outcomes of clinical ethics support services. However, methodological quality needs to be improved. Further qualitative or mixed-method research on evaluating clinical ethics support services may contribute to the development of evaluating outcomes of clinical ethics support services by means of broaden the range of appropriate (process-oriented) outcomes of (different types of) clinical ethics support services. (shrink)

Evaluation of clinical ethical case consultations has been discussed as an important research task in recent decades. A rigid framework of evaluation is essential to improve quality of consultations and, thus, quality of patient care. Different approaches to evaluate those services appropriately and to determine adequate empirical endpoints have been proposed. A key challenge is to provide an answer to the question as to which empirical endpoints—and for what reasons—should be considered when evaluating the quality of a service. In this (...) paper, we argue for an approach that adopts the role of ethics consultants as its point of departure. In a first step, we describe empirical and ethical characteristics of evaluating clinical ethical case. We show that the mode of action and the explicit normative character of the interventions constitute two characteristics which pose challenges to the selection of appropriate quality criteria and require special attention. In a second step, we outline the way in which an analysis of the role of ethics consultants in the context of a clinical ethical case consultation services can account for the existing challenges by linking empirically measurable endpoints with normative theory. Finally, we discuss practical implications of our model for evaluation research. (shrink)

Since the 1960s, it has been recognized that “medical ethics,” the area of inquiry about the obligations of practitioners of medicine, is inadequate for capturing and addressing the complexities associated with modern medicine, human health, and wellbeing. Subsequently, a new specialty emerged which involved scholars and professionals from a variety of disciplines who had an interest in healthcare ethics. The name adopted is variously biomedical ethics or bioethics. The practice of bioethics in clinical settings is clinical ethics and its primary (...) aim is to resolve patient care issues and conflicts. Nurses are among these clinical ethicists. They are drawn to the study and practice of bioethics and its applications as way to address the problems encountered in practice. A significant number are among the ranks of clinical ethicists. However, in the role of bio- or clinical ethicist, some retained the title of their original profession, calling themselves nurse ethicists, and some did not. In this article, we explore under which conditions it is permissible or preferable that one retains one’s prior profession’s nomenclature as a prefix to “ethicist,” under which conditions it is not, and why. We emphasize the need for transparency of purpose related to titles and their possible influence on individual and social good. (shrink)

The past few years have seen greater attention directed toward important procedural elements associated with ethics consultation. Examples include considerations about how best to document consulta...

The interdisciplinary Hannover Qualification Programme on ethics consultation has trained hospital staff to operate clinical ethics services in their respective hospitals since 2003. To evaluate Hannover Qualification Programme, all former participants were contacted using an online questionnaire including four domains: status quo before attending Hannover Qualification Programme, present status, impact of Hannover Qualification Programme, future challenges. Research objectives were the long-term satisfaction with Hannover Qualification Programme and its impact on clinical ethics services. The response rate was 45%. Hannover Qualification Programme (...) was evaluated as helpful and the responders were capable of applying their acquired skills. Most participants could contribute to the implementation of clinical ethics services. They were satisfied with Hannover Qualification Programme and with the degree of changes in their hospitals. In conclusion, clinical ethics education had long-term effects on trainees and on their respective hospitals. Problems were mentioned rather in the field of utilisation than with implementation or quality of clinical ethics services. (shrink)

To support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations, Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) are increasingly implemented. To assess the impact of CES, it is important to evaluate outcomes. Despite general claims about outcomes from MCD experts and some qualitative research, there exists no conceptual analysis of outcomes yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically define and categorize MCD outcomes. An additional aim was to compare these outcomes with the outcomes in (...) the Euro-MCD Instrument from 2014, to further validate this Instrument. The concept mapping method was used and involves qualitative and quantitative steps including brainstorming, individual structuring, computation of concept maps (by principal component analysis and cluster analysis), group interpretation and utilization. In total, 12 experienced MCD participants from a variety of professional backgrounds participated in two sessions. The focus group brainstorm resulted in a list of 85 possible MCD outcomes, of which a point map and concept maps were constructed. After a thorough discussion of each cluster, final consensus was reached on the names and position of 8 clusters of MCD outcomes: 1) Organisation and Policy; 2) Team development; 3) Personal development focused on the Other Person; 4) Personal development as Professional, focused on Skills; 5) Personal development as Professional, focused on Knowledge; 6) Personal development as an Individual; 7) Perception and Connection; and 8) Concrete action. This study explored and categorized MCD outcomes in a concept mapping focus group. When comparing the results with the Euro-MCD Instrument, our study confirms that outcomes of MCD can be categorized in clusters referring to the organisational level, team development, personal development (both as an individual and a professional) and the concrete case-level. In developing CES evaluation tools, it is important to be explicit if an outcome refers to the individual or the team, to knowledge or skills, to the organisation or the specific case. The findings will be used in the further validation of the Euro-MCD Instrument. The current study further contributes to the field of evaluating CES in general and defining outcomes of MCD in particular. (shrink)

With disagreement, doubts, or ambiguous grounds in end–of-life decisions, doctors are advised to involve a clinical ethics committee. However, little has been published on doctors’ experiences with discussing an end-of-life decision in a CEC. As part of the quality assurance of this work, we wanted to find out if clinicians have benefited from discussing end-of-life decisions in CECs and why. We will disseminate some Norwegian doctors’ experiences when discussing end-of-life decisions in CECs, based on semi-structured interviews with fifteen Norwegian physicians (...) who had brought an end-of-life decision case to a CEC. Almost half of the cases involved conflicts with the patients’ relatives. In a majority of the cases, there was uncertainty about what would be the ethically preferable solution. Reasons for referring the case to the CEC were to get broader illumination of the case, to get perspective from people outside the team, to get advice, or to get moral backing on a decision already made. A great majority of the clinicians reported an overall positive experience with the CECs’ discussions. In cases where there was conflict, the clinicians reported less satisfaction with the CECs’ discussions. The study shows that most doctors who have used a CEC in an end-of-life decision find it useful to have ethical and/or legal aspects illuminated, and to have the dilemma scrutinized from a new perspective. A systematic discussion seems to be significant to the clinicians. (shrink)

BackgroundOver the years, Bulgarian bioethics has been mainly an academic enterprise and fallen short of providing health professionals with skills for ethical decision-making. Clinical ethics support (CES) was piloted by the author through two bottom-up models – METAP (Modular, Ethical, Treatment, Allocation of resources, Process) and MCD (Moral Case Deliberation).AimsThis paper aims to present and analyse developments in the area of clinical ethics and the first experiences in CES in Bulgaria.MethodologyThe project reported here included a review of relevant literature on (...) CES methods and evaluation and a documentary review of data from two CES pilot projects: METAP and MCD.ResultsMost of the 69 METAP ethics meetings reviewed were first time meetings (88,4%); the average duration was 36 min and the average number of participants was four (44,9%). The meetings were organized in response to cases of severely or critically ill patients. The ethical dilemmas included choice of treatment (31,9%) and conflicts with the patient or their relatives (23,2%). Consensus was achieved in 34,8% of the cases. The situation was clarified with the patient (27,5%) and within the team (15,9%). The rights and obligations of both sides were discussed in 7,2% of the cases. The experience of the members of the Bulgarian Association of Bioethics and Clinical Ethics (BABCE) with MCD was also presented to justify the inference about the applicability of the two CES models in a Bulgarian context.ConclusionAmong Eastern European countries Bulgaria has made progress in CES. Both METAP and MCD have been found to be useful methods. (shrink)

Although clinical ethics consultation has existed for more than 40 years in the USA and Europe, it was not available in Bulgaria until recently. In introducing clinical ethics consultation into our country, the Modular, Ethical, Treatment, Allocation of resources, Process methodology has been preferred because of its potential to be used in resource-poor settings and its strong educational function. This paper presents the results of a METAP evaluation in a hospital palliative care ward in the town of Vratsa. The evaluation (...) was based on Beauchamp and Childress’ four principles of biomedical ethics and involves implementation of specific instruments for clinical ethics decision-making. Research tasks emphasised analyses of ethics meetings in the ward. Data were processed by SPSS v.24 using descriptive statistical analysis. Altogether, 32 ethics meetings of an average duration 20.63 min were conducted on cases involving critically ill patients. Most of the participants expressed satisfaction with the ethics process. The principlist approach supported resolution of conflicts between autonomous patients and their relatives, clarified definitions of “medical benefit” and “social good,” and enabled assessments of the risk of unequal treatment. Even as the specific research tasks were achieved, further participant follow-up is necessary to identify any improvement in healthcare personnel’s ethical competence. METAP worked well in end-of-life care settings. Participants experienced several benefits, including improved team communication, better understanding of patient preferences, and confidence in the correctness of decisions. Despite the significant educational potential of METAP, the need for additional and ongoing ethics training of health professionals should not be underestimated. (shrink)

When ethical decisions have to be taken in critical, complex medical situations, they often involve decisions that set the course for or against life-sustaining treatments. Therefore the decisions have far-reaching consequences for the patients, their relatives, and often for the clinical staff. Although the rich psychology literature provides evidence that reasoning may be affected by undesired influences that may undermine the quality of the decision outcome, not much attention has been given to this phenomenon in health care or ethics consultation. (...) In this paper, we aim to contribute to the sensitization of the problem of systematic reasoning biases by showing how exemplary individual and group biases can affect the quality of decision-making on an individual and group level. We are addressing clinical ethicists as well as clinicians who guide complex decision-making processes of ethical significance. Knowledge regarding exemplary group psychological biases (e.g. conformity bias), and individual biases (e.g. stereotypes), will be taken from the disciplines of social psychology and cognitive decision science and considered in the field of ethical decision-making. Finally we discuss the influence of intuitive versus analytical (systematical) reasoning on the validity of ethical decision-making. (shrink)