Hospital Ethics Committees in Poland

Chaplains as mediators in conflicts concerning method of patients' medical care-study of the situation in Poland

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Health Care Chaplains, whose primary role is to provide spiritual care to patients, their families, and medical staff, are sometimes asked for help in making difficult decisions and resolving conflicts. Their help is justified especially when religious beliefs and values constitute the root of the problem. The study aims to analyze the phenomenon of asking hospital and hospice chaplains in Poland to take on the role of mediators in conflicts concerning methods of patients' medical care.

METHODS

A survey was conducted among 108 Catholic chaplains, i.e. at least 10% of all chaplains currently working in Polish hospitals and hospices. The survey was conducted using the electronic questionnaire through an intermediary with no follow-up and so self-selecting. The findings obtained were subjected to statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Of all the respondents, 31% admitted having received requests to mediate in a conflict over patient care. Such requests were not conditional upon the type of medical facility, its location, or the chaplain's years of experience. 30% of chaplains receive requests to mediate between patients and doctors. Solving disputes between family members and members of the medical teams are less frequent (25 and 19%, respectively). The majority of the respondents (73%) accept the role of the mediator, although 46% reserve the right to refuse in certain situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Asking health care chaplains to become mediators in conflicts over patients' medical care confirms the need to include mediation skills in the course of their education and gaining professional experience.

Hospital chaplains as ethical consultants in making difficult medical decisions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few Polish hospitals have Hospital Ethics Committee (HECs) and the services are not always adequate. In this situation, the role of HECs, in providing, among others, ethical advice on the discontinuation of persistent therapies, may be taken over by other entities. The aim of our research was to investigate, how often and on what issues hospital chaplains are asked for ethical advice in reaching difficult medical decisions.

METHODS

A survey of 100 Roman Catholic chaplains was conducted, that is, at least 10% of all chaplains currently working in Polish hospitals.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 29% confirmed receiving requests for advice in making a morally difficult medical decision. Receiving this type of request was not conditional on the place of their service, duration of their pastoral mission or HEC membership. The largest group of chaplains (21%) encounter questions concerning the ethical dilemmas associated with discontinuing persistent therapy. Patients and their families most often raise issues related to the methods of birth control, and the medical staff raise the issue of termination of pregnancy-as reported by 9% and 15% of chaplains, respectively. Most of the chaplains asked for help (79%) experience a deficit of specialist knowledge in the area of medicine or ethics.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to improve the quality of ethical consultations in Polish hospitals, in addition to further development of HECs, it is postulated to develop a system for bioethical education of chaplains.

Clinical Ethics Consultations in the Opinion of Polish Physicians

Clinical Ethics Consultations (CEC) are an important tool for physicians in solving difficult cases. They are extremely common in North America and to a lesser extent also present in Europe. However, there is little data on this practice in Poland. We present results of a survey of 521 physicians practising in Poland concerning their opinion on CECs and related practices. We analysed the data looking at such issues as CECs' perceived availability, use of CECs, and perceived usefulness of such support. Physicians in our study generally encounter hard ethics cases, even-surprisingly-those who do not work in hospitals. Most physicians have no CEC access, and those that do still do not employ CECs. However, physicians perceive this form of support as useful-even more so among actual users of CECs. We compared these findings with similar studies from other European countries and the North America. We point out peculiarities of our results as compared to those in other countries, with some possible explanations. We hope the results may encourage regulatory debate on the need to formally introduce CECs into the Polish healthcare system.

Perceptions of important outcomes of moral case deliberations: a qualitative study among healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care

Background

In childhood cancer care, healthcare professionals must deal with several difficult moral situations in clinical practice. Previous studies show that morally difficult challenges are related to decisions on treatment limitations, infringing on the child's integrity and growing autonomy, and interprofessional conflicts. Research also shows that healthcare professionals have expressed a need for clinical ethics support to help them deal with morally difficult situations. Moral case deliberations (MCDs) are one example of ethics support. The aim of this study was to describe the MCD-related outcomes that healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care considered important, before MCDs were implemented, in order to facilitate the implementation of MCDs in childhood cancer care in Sweden.

Methods

This study is based on qualitative data. Healthcare professionals, mostly representing registered nurses, nursing assistants and physicians, working at childhood cancer care centres in Sweden, were invited to respond to the translated and content validated European MCD Outcomes Instrument, before participating in regular MCDs. Answers to the main open-ended question, included in the questionnaire, was analysed according to systematic text condensation.

Results

Data was collected from 161 responses from the healthcare professionals. The responses included healthcare professionals’ perceptions of which MCD-related outcomes they found important for handling moral challenges. Three different themes of important outcomes from the analysis of the data are presented as follows: Interprofessional well-being in team interactions on a team level; Professional comfort when dealing with moral challenges on a personal level; and Improved quality of care for the child and the family on a care level.

Conclusions

Healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care considered it important that ethics support could enhance the well-being of interprofessional teams, support healthcare professionals on an individual level and improve quality of care. The results of this study can be used in current and future training for MCD-facilitators. When knowing the context specific important MCD-outcomes, the sessions could be adapted. Managers in childhood cancer care would benefit from knowing about the specific important outcomes for their target group because they could then create relevant working conditions for clinical ethics support.

Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review

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.

The first nationwide study on facing and solving ethical dilemmas among healthcare professionals in Slovenia

Background

Healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients and families are often faced with ethical dilemmas. The role of healthcare ethics committees (HECs) is to offer support in these situations.

Aim

The primary objective was to study how often HCPs encounter ethical dilemmas. The secondary objective was to identify the main types of ethical dilemmas encountered and how HCPs solve them.

Subjects and methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, survey-based study among HCPs in 14 Slovenian hospitals. A questionnaire was designed and validated by HCPs who were selected by proportional stratified sampling. Data collection took place between April 2015 and April 2016.

Results

The final sample size was n = 485 (385 or 79.4%, female). The response rates for HCPs working in secondary and tertiary level institutions were 45% and 51%, respectively. Three hundred and forty (70.4%) of 485 HCPs (very) frequently encountered ethical dilemmas. Frequent ethical dilemmas were waiting periods for diagnostics or treatment, suboptimal working conditions due to poor interpersonal relations on the ward, preserving patients’ dignity, and relations between HCPs and patients. Physicians and nurses working in secondary level institutions, compared to their colleagues working in tertiary level institutions, more frequently encountered ethical dilemmas with respect to preserving patients’ dignity, protecting patients’ information, and relations between HCPs and patients. In terms of solutions, all HCPs most frequently discussed ethical dilemmas with co-workers (colleagues), and with the head of the department. According to HCPs, the most important role of HECs is staff education, followed by improving communication, and reviewing difficult ethical cases.

Conclusions

Waiting periods for diagnostics and treatment and suboptimal working conditions due to poor interpersonal relations are considered to be among the most important ethical issues by HCPs in Slovenian hospitals. The most important role of HECs is staff education, improving communication, and reviewing difficult ethical cases.

Clinical Ethics Consultation in the Transition Countries of Central and Eastern Europe

Since 1989, clinical ethics consultation in form of hospital ethics committees (HECs) was established in most of the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Up to now, the similarities and differences between HECs in Central and Eastern Europe and their counterparts in the U.S. and Western Europe have not been determined. Through search in literature databases, we have identified studies that document the implementation of clinical ethics consultation in Central and Eastern Europe. These studies have been analyzed under the following aspects: mode of establishment of HECs, character of consultation they provide, and their composition. The results show that HECs in the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe differ from their western-European or U.S. counterparts with regard to these three aspects. HECs were established because of centrally imposed legal regulations. Little initiatives in this area were taken by medical professionals interested in resolving emerging ethical issues. HECs in the transition countries concentrate mostly on review of research protocols or resolution of administrative conflicts in healthcare institutions. Moreover, integration of non-professional third parties in the workings of HECs is often neglected. We argue that these differences can be attributed to the historical background and the role of medicine in these countries under the communist regime. Political and organizational structures of healthcare as well as education of healthcare staff during this period influenced current functioning of clinical ethics consultation in the transition countries.

POTENTIALITIES AND LIMITS OF THE CLINICAL ETHICS COMMITTEE AND NURSE PARTICIPATION: REFLECTIONS

ABSTRACT Objective: to reflect on the importance of the participation of nurses in the Clinical Ethics Committee in Brazil and the knowledge required for this performance. Method: reflection based on experience of a postdoctoral internship carried out within the Department of Preventive Medicine, Public Health and History of Science of the School of Medicine of Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Results: the Clinical Ethics Committee contributes to the improvement of health care provided by professionals and health institutions. The nurses are key participants, not only because they are professionals involved in the clinical practice, committed to the decision-making and the patient's performance, but also because they vision is necessary and irreplaceable in an environment of deliberation in which different perspectives and approximations for prudent resolution of ethical conflicts. Conclusion: if the nurses want to assume a strategic position, positively influencing the quality of care provided, protecting interests and ensuring the well-being of the users, they should assume as an urgent basis the need to develop the skills required to deal with ethical problems in the day-to-day of their care practice, accepting the responsibility to participate in the Clinical Ethics Committees, promoting their creation and inserting themselves into their activities.

Clinical Ethics Support for Healthcare Personnel: An Integrative Literature Review

This study describes which clinical ethics approaches are available to support healthcare personnel in clinical practice in terms of their construction, functions and goals. Healthcare personnel frequently face ethically difficult situations in the course of their work and these issues cover a wide range of areas from prenatal care to end-of-life care. Although various forms of clinical ethics support have been developed, to our knowledge there is a lack of review studies describing which ethics support approaches are available, how they are constructed and their goals in supporting healthcare personnel in clinical practice. This study engages in an integrative literature review. We searched for peer-reviewed academic articles written in English between 2000 and 2016 using specific Mesh terms and manual keywords in CINAHL, MEDLINE and Psych INFO databases. In total, 54 articles worldwide described clinical ethics support approaches that include clinical ethics consultation, clinical ethics committees, moral case deliberation, ethics rounds, ethics discussion groups, and ethics reflection groups. Clinical ethics consultation and clinical ethics committees have various roles and functions in different countries. They can provide healthcare personnel with advice and recommendations regarding the best course of action. Moral case deliberation, ethics rounds, ethics discussion groups and ethics reflection groups support the idea that group reflection increases insight into ethical issues. Clinical ethics support in the form of a "bottom-up" perspective might give healthcare personnel opportunities to think and reflect more than a "top-down" perspective. A "bottom-up" approach leaves the healthcare personnel with the moral responsibility for their choice of action in clinical practice, while a "top-down" approach risks removing such moral responsibility.