Impact of clinical ethics support on daily practice-First-line managers' experiences in the Euro-MCD project

What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project

The evaluation of the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes project (Euro-MCD) has resulted in a revised evaluation instrument, knowledge about the content of MCD (moral case deliberation), and the perspectives of those involved. In this paper, we report on a perspective that has been overlooked, the facilitators'. We aim to describe facilitators' perceptions of high-quality moral case deliberation and their Euro-MCD sessions. The research took place in Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands using a survey combined with interviews with 41 facilitators. Facilitators' perceived that attaining a high-quality MCD implies fostering a safe and respectful atmosphere, creating a wondering mode, being an attentive authority, developing moral reflective skills, reaching a common understanding, and ensuring organisational prerequisites for the MCD sessions. Our central conclusion is that efforts at three levels are required to attain a high-quality MCD: trained and virtuous facilitator; committed, respectful participants; and organizational space. Furthermore, managers have a responsibility to prepare MCD participants for what it means to take part in MCD.

Nurses' assessment of the ethical climate of a university hospital in the South of Brazil

Background

Ethical climate can be defined as the healthcare professionals' perceptions of the ethical treatment of healthcare issues and human interactions in their work environment. A number of studies on ethical climate are being carried out in several countries. In Brazil, however, research on the matter is still incipient, especially among hospital nurses.

Aim

To assess nurses' perception of the ethical climate in a university hospital in the South of Brazil.

Methods

Cross-sectional study carried out with 269 nurses from a university hospital, using a sociodemographic and occupational profiling survey and the Hospital Ethical Climate Survey - Brazilian version. Data analysis was done through descriptive statistics.

Results

The nurses' perception of the ethical climate was positive (3.68 ± 0.55). Among the five assessment factors, 'peers' had the highest score (4.07 ± 0.57), whereas 'physicians' had the lowest score (3.26 ± 0.70) for ethical climate.

Conclusion

In general, the ethical climate was perceived as positive, with small variations between the factors of the instrument. Ethical climate could be enhanced through strategies that encourage interpersonal relationships. This study shows the importance of a positive ethical climate based on good relationships between healthcare professionals for ensuring better care.

Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Clinical ethics consultations (CEC) can be complex interventions, involving multiple methods, stakeholders, and competing ethical values. Despite longstanding calls for rigorous evaluation in the field, progress has been limited. The Medical Research Council (MRC) proposed guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of complex interventions. The evaluation of CEC may benefit from application of the MRC framework to advance the transparency and methodological rigor of this field. A first step is to understand the outcomes measured in evaluations of CEC in healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this review was to identify and map the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC. The secondary objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of CEC structures, processes, and roles to enhance understanding and to inform standardization.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases to identify primary studies of CEC involving patients, substitute decision-makers and/or family members, clinicians, healthcare staff and leaders. Outcomes were mapped across five conceptual domains as identified a priori based on our clinical ethics experience and preliminary literature searches and revised based on our emerging interpretation of the data. These domains included personal factors, process factors, clinical factors, quality, and resource factors.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies were included in the review. Studies were highly heterogeneous and varied considerably regarding format and process of ethical intervention, credentials of interventionist, population of study, outcomes reported, and measures employed. In addition, few studies used validated measurement tools. The top three outcome domains that studies reported on were quality (n = 31), process factors (n = 23), and clinical factors (n = 19). The majority of studies examined multiple outcome domains. All five outcome domains were multidimensional and included a variety of subthemes.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review represents the initial phase of mapping the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC and identifying gaps in the evidence. The confirmed lack of standardization represents a hindrance to the provision of high quality intervention and CEC scientific progress. Insights gained can inform the development of a core outcome set to standardize outcome measures in CEC evaluation research and enable scientifically rigorous efficacy trials of CEC.

“There Was a Sense That Our Load Had Been Lightened”: Evaluating Outcomes of Virtual Ethics Rounds for Veterinary Team Members

Clinical ethics support services (CESS) are employed in healthcare to improve patient care and help team members develop skills to recognize and navigate ethically challenging situations (ECS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of ethics rounds, one form of CESS, on veterinary team members. An anonymous, online mixed-methods survey incorporating a 15-item instrument designed to assess the outcomes of moral case deliberation originally developed for human healthcare workers (the Euro-MCD 2.0), was developed. The survey was administered to veterinary team members prior to and following participation in a 90-min virtual ethics rounds session. A total of 23 sessions of virtual ethics rounds were held. In total, 213 individuals participated, and 89 completed both surveys (response rate 41.8%). Most respondents were female (n = 70, 81%). Most were veterinarians (n = 51, 59%), followed by other veterinary team members (practice manager, animal attendant) (n = 18, 21%), veterinary nurses or animal health technicians (n = 10, 12%) and veterinary students (n = 8, 9%). Age ranged from 20 to 73 (median 41, IQR 32–52, n = 87). While there was no statistically significant difference between overall modified Euro-MCD 2.0 scores between T1 and T2, there were statistically significant changes in 7 out of 15 Euro-MCD 2.0 items in the domains of moral competence and moral teamwork. Reflexive thematic analysis of free-text responses identified themes including the types, impact and barriers to resolving ECS, the impacts of ethics rounds on veterinary team members and constraints preventing veterinary team members from speaking up in the face of ECS. While participants largely described the impact of ethics rounds as beneficial (for example, by facilitating clarification of thinking about ECS, allowing participants to see ECS from the perspective of others and providing a safe space for discussion), reflecting on ECS could be stressful for participants. Active participation in ethics rounds may be inhibited in the context of power imbalance, or in settings where bullying occurs. Overall, carefully facilitated ethics rounds has the potential to improve the ability of veterinary team members to identify and navigate ECS, and potentially mitigate moral distress.

The usability, feasibility and fidelity of the Ethics Quarter e-learning intervention for nurse managers

BACKGROUND

Nurse managers (NMs) expect support to carry out their ethical activities in a complex health care environment. In this study, the Ethics Quarter (EQ) is suggested as a new educational ethics e-learning intervention for nurse managers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability, feasibility and fidelity of the EQ. The goal was to create a new way to support NMs' ethical activity profile (developing one's own ethics knowledge, influencing ethical issues, conducting or implementing ethics research, identifying and solving ethical problems) for the use of healthcare organizations.

METHODS

The EQ was developed under guidance of the criteria for complex interventions in health care (CReDECI2) guideline. A cross-sectional survey was conducted within the intervention group after a randomized controlled trial (the main study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: 04234503). The participants were NM members of the Union of Health and Social Care Professionals in Finland (n = 95).

RESULTS

A system usability scale (SUS) assessed the overall usability of EQ as good (a mean SUS score of 85.40 out of 100). Positive feedback about the EQ's feasibility was reported in structured and open questions (a good, necessary and practical research knowledge-based e-learning intervention for all nurse managers) and recommendations for further development (intervention contents could be even more challenging and interactive) were highlighted. Fidelity, measured with Google Analytics, reported shorter time used by NMs on the EQ education than estimated.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support the high usability, feasibility and average fidelity of the EQ intervention and its potential while also providing evidence for the development of future ethics education. Health care organizations would benefit from adopting the EQ to support the ethical activities and ethical activity profile of NMs. Additionally, this study provides an example of ethics intervention development and evaluation in nursing research.

Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process

Background

Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process.

Methods

The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes.

Results

The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance.

Conclusions

The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.