The study aimed to explore the subjective need of healthcare professionals for ethics consultation, their experience with ethical conflicts, and expectations and objections toward a Clinical Ethics Committee. Staff at a university hospital took part in a survey (January to June 2010) using a questionnaire with open and closed questions. Descriptive data for physicians and nurses (response rate = 13.5%, n = 101) are presented. Physicians and nurses reported similar high frequencies of ethical conflicts but rated the relevance of ethical (...) issues differently. Nurses stated ethical issues as less important to physicians than to themselves. Ethical conflicts were mostly discussed with staff from one’s own profession. Respondents predominantly expected the Clinical Ethics Committee to provide competent support. Mostly, nurses feared it might have no influence on clinical practice. Findings suggest that experiences of ethical conflicts might reflect interprofessional communication patterns. Expectations and objections against Clinical Ethics Committees were multifaceted, and should be overcome by providing sufficient information. The Clinical Ethics Committee needs to take different perspectives of professions into account. (shrink)

Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs), as distinct from Research Ethics Committees, were originally established with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in managing controversial clinical ethical issues. However, it is still unclear whether they manage to accomplish this task and what is their impact on clinical practice. This systematic review aims to collect available assessments of CECs’ performance as reported in literature, in order to evaluate CECs’ effectiveness. We retrieved all literature published up to November 2019 in six databases (PubMed, Ovid (...) MEDLINE, Scopus, Philosopher’s Index, Embase and Web of Science), following PRISMA guidelines. We included only articles specifically addressing CECs and providing any form of CECs performance assessment. Twenty-nine articles were included. Ethics consultation was the most evaluated of CECs’ functions. We did not find standardized tools for measuring CECs’ efficacy, but 33% of studies considered “user satisfaction” as an indicator, with 94% of them reporting an average positive perception of CECs’ impact. Changes in patient treatment and a decrease of moral distress in health personnel were reported as additional outcomes of ethics consultation. The highly diverse ways by which CECs carry out their activities make CECs’ evaluation difficult. The adoption of shared criteria would be desirable to provide a reliable answer to the question about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, in general both users and providers consider CECs as helpful, relevant to their work, able to improve the quality of care. Their main function is ethics consultation, while less attention seems to be devoted to bioethics education and policy formation. (shrink)