Quality in ethics consultations

Clinical Ethics Fellowship Programs in the United States and Canada: Program Directors' Opinions About Accreditation and Funding

To succeed, an accreditation process for clinical ethics fellowship programs (CEFPs) would need support from CEFP directors. To assess CEFP directors' opinions, we surveyed all 36 CEFP directors in the United States and Canada, achieving a 100% response rate. We found that support for accreditation is strong, with 30.6% strongly supportive, 44.4% supportive, 22.2% neutral, 2.8% opposed, and 0% strongly opposed. Most directors (77.8%) would be likely to apply for accreditation within the next five years regardless of the availability of government funding; even more (86.1%) would apply if government funding became available for accredited programs. Most directors thought that lack of a national accreditation process (75.0%), lack of agreed-upon standards (90.0%), and lack of funding for CEFPs (91.7%) were at least moderate problems for the field. When directors were asked what they thought was the greatest challenge or barrier to developing an accreditation process, many mentioned the diversity of programs and the challenge of achieving consensus on accreditation standards. Directors offered a variety of suggestions for how to overcome or manage challenges or barriers, including collecting data on existing programs, mirroring standards established for other health professions, and setting clear expectations on the need for compromise. When directors were asked how they expected that accreditation and government funding would affect their own programs, the field of clinical ethics, and patient care, directors mostly had very positive expectations; no director expected negative effects in any of these areas. Overall, this study provides evidence that developing an accreditation process for CEFPs would be both possible and desirable. Our findings have immediate practical implications for the field and will inform efforts that are already underway to establish an accreditation process for CEFPs.

Quality Characteristics for Clinical Ethics Support in the Netherlands

Background: This article presents a set of quality characteristics of clinical ethics support (CES) in the Netherlands.Methods: The quality characteristics were developed with a large group of stakeholders working with CES, participating in the Dutch Network for Clinical Ethics Support (NEON).Results: The quality characteristics concern the following domains: (1) goals of CES, (2) methods of CES, (3) competences of CES practitioners, and (4) implementation of CES.Conclusions: We discuss suggestions for how to use the quality characteristics, discuss some aspects that stand out about these quality characteristics, and reflect on the method and the status of the quality characteristics. The quality characteristics are meant as a heuristic instrument, helping CES practitioners to explore and improve the quality of CES in a health care organization, but at the same time they can be improved based on experiences during their application to CES practices.

Conceptualizing and Fostering the Quality of CES Through a Dutch National Network on CES (NEON)

The prevalence of Clinical ethics support (CES) services is increasing. Yet, questions about what quality of CES entails and how to foster the quality of CES remain. This paper describes the development of a national network (NEON), which aimed to conceptualize and foster the quality of CES in the Netherlands simultaneously. Our methodology was inspired by a responsive evaluation approach which shares some of our key theoretical presuppositions of CES. A responsive evaluation methodology engages stakeholders in developing quality standards of a certain practice, instead of evaluating a practice by predefined standards. In this paper, we describe the relationship between our theoretical viewpoint on CES and a responsive evaluation methodology. Then we describe the development of the network (NEON) and focus on three activities that exemplify our approach. In the discussion, we reflect on the similarities and differences between our approach and other international initiatives focusing on the quality of CES.

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements

INTRODUCTION

Value and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonetheless, bioethical research should not go unquestioned regarding its scientific or social value. What exactly constitutes the value of bioethical research, however, remains widely unclear so far.

METHODS

This explorative study investigated possible value dimensions for bioethical research by conducting a qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements about the value of their studies. 40 bioethics articles published 2015 in four relevant journals (The American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMC Medical Ethics and Journal of Medical Ethics) were analyzed. The value dimensions of "advancing knowledge" (e.g. research results that are relevant for science itself and for further research) and "application" (e.g. increasing applicability of research results in practice) were used as main deductive categories for the analysis. Further subcategories were inductively generated.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in 62 subcategories representing a wide range of value dimensions for bioethical research. Of these, 45 were subcategories of "advancing knowledge" and 17 of "application". In 21 articles, no value dimensions related to "application" was found; the remaining 19 articles mentioned "advancing knowledge" as well as "application". The value dimensions related to "advancing knowledge" were, in general, more fine-grained.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though limitations arise regarding the sample, the study revealed a plethora of value dimensions that can inform further debates about what makes bioethical research valuable for science and society. Besides theoretical reflections on the value of bioethics more meta-research in bioethics is needed.

Institutional Ethics Committees

In hospitals throughout the United States, institutional ethics committees (IECs) have become a standard vehicle for the education of health professionals about biomedical ethics, for the drafting and review of hospital policy, and for clinical ethics case consultation. In addition, there is increasing interest in a role for the IEC in organizational ethics. Recommendations are made about the membership and structure of an IEC, and guidance is provided for those serving on an IEC.

Certification ISO 9001 in clinical ethics consultation for improving quality and safety in healthcare

This paper refers to the quality management process of the Laboratory of Clinical Bioethics (LCB) of the University of Padua (Italy), which has obtained the quality certification to ISO 9001:2008, as a Clinical Ethics Support Service. Its activities consist mainly in clinical ethics consultations and training services, addressed to those who are called to decisions with ethical implications in the clinical setting, proposing a structured approach to identify and analyze the ethical issues that may loom in the relationships between health professionals and patients, and participating in their solution. The expected benefits of the application of ISO 9001 were mainly the following: to formalize the procedure adopted for clinical ethics consultation and training, to obtain a controlled management of documents, information and data, to ensure and demonstrate the quality of the provided activities and to make methods and organization publicly available. The main results which have been achieved with the 'quality management project' are summarized as follows: the enunciation of LCB Mission and Quality Policy; the drafting of the procedure by which clinical ethics consultation is provided; the formalization of members' skills and the adoption of relevant process and outcome indicators. Our experience may be useful in promoting accountability for the quality of ethics consultation services. We consider the certification process as a tool for transparent and reliable management of one of the most critical tasks in the current context of healthcare, motivating similar facilities to undertake similar pathways, with the aim to provide quality control on their activities.