Taking the burden off: a study of the quality of ethics consultation in the time of COVID-19

Ethics rounds in the ambulance service: a qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

It is a common ethical challenge for ambulance clinicians to care for patients with impaired decision-making capacities while assessing and determining the degree of decision-making ability and considering ethical values. Ambulance clinicians' ethical competence seems to be increasingly important in coping with such varied ethical dilemmas. Ethics rounds is a model designed to promote the development of ethical competence among clinicians. While standard in other contexts, to the best of our knowledge, it has not been applied within the ambulance service context. Thus, the aim of this study was to describe ambulance clinicians' experiences of participating in ethics rounds.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study, evaluating an intervention. Data were collected through sixteen interviews with ambulance clinicians who had participated in an intervention involving ethics rounds. The analysis was performed by use of content analysis.

RESULTS

Two themes describe the participants' experiences: (1) Reflecting freely within a given framework, and (2) Being surprised by new insights. The following categories form the basis of the themes; 1a) Gentle guidance by the facilitator, 1b) A comprehensible structure, 2a) New awareness in the face of ethical problems, and 2b) Shared learning through dialogue.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating structured ethics rounds seems to create a continuous development in ethical competence that may improve the quality of care in the ambulance service. Structured guidance and facilitated group reflections offer ambulance clinicians opportunities for both personal and professional development. An important prerequisite for the development of ethical competence is a well-educated facilitator. Consequently, this type of ethics rounds may be considered a useful pedagogical model for the development of ethical competence in the ambulance service.

Establishing a clinical ethics support service: lessons from the first 18 months of a new Australian service - a case study

BACKGROUND

Although the importance of clinical ethics in contemporary clinical environments is established, development of formal clinical ethics services in the Australia health system has, to date, been ad hoc. This study was designed to systematically follow and reflect upon the first 18 months of activity by a newly established service, to examine key barriers and facilitators to establishing a new service in an Australian hospital setting.

METHODS

HOW THE STUDY WAS PERFORMED AND STATISTICAL TESTS USED: A qualitative case study approach was utilised. The study gathered and analysed data using observations of service committee meetings, document analysis of agendas and minutes, and semi-structured interviews with committee members to generate semantic themes. By interpreting the thematic findings in reference to national capacity building resources, this study also aimed to provide practice-based reflections for other health agencies.

RESULTS

THE MAIN FINDINGS: An overarching theme identified in the data was a strong commitment to supporting clinicians facing difficult patient care decisions and navigating difficult discussions with patients and families. Another key theme was the role of the new clinical ethics support service in providing clinicians with a pathway to raise system-wide issues with the organisation Executive. While there was strong clinical engagement, consumer and community participation remained a challenge, as did unresolved governance issues and a need for clearer policy relationship between the service and the organisation. Considering these themes in relation to the national capacity building resources, the study identifies three areas likely to require ongoing development and negotiation. These are: the role of the clinical ethics support service as a link between the workforce and the Executive; the incorporation of consumers and patients; and ethical reasoning. To improve the effectiveness of the service, it is necessary to increase clarity on the service's role at the governance and policy level, as well as develop strategies for engaging consumers, patients and families. Finally, the capacity of the service to reflect on complex cases may be enhanced through explicit discussions of various different ethical frameworks and ways of deliberating.

Evaluating the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the physicians' psychological health: A systematic scoping review

Background

COVID-19 has endangered healthcare systems at multiple levels worldwide. Published data suggests that moral dilemmas faced during these unprecedented times have placed physicians at the intersections of ethical and unethical considerations. This phenomenon has questioned the physicians' morality and how that has affected their conduct. The purpose of our review is to tap into the spectrum of the transforming optics of patient care during the pandemic and its impact on psychological wellbeing of physicians.

Methods

We adopted the Arksey and O'Malley's framework, defining research questions, identifying relevant studies, selecting the studies using agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria, charting the data, and summarizing and reporting results. Databases of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched using a predefined search string. The retrieved titles and abstracts were reviewed. Later, a detailed full-text analysis of the studies which matched our inclusion criteria was performed.

Results

Our first search identified 875 titles and abstracts. After excluding duplicates, irrelevant, and incomplete titles, we selected 28 studies for further analysis. The sample size in 28 studies was 15,509 with an average size of 637 per study. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used, with cross-sectional surveys being utilized in all 16 quantitative studies. Using the data from semi-structured interviews, several discrete codes were generated, which led to the identification of five main themes; mental health, individual challenges, decision-making, change in patient care, and support services.

Conclusion

This scoping review reports an alarming rise in psychological distress, moral injury, cynicism, uncertainty, burnout, and grief among physicians during the pandemic. Decision-making and patient care were mostly regulated by rationing, triaging, age, gender, and life expectancy. Poor professional controls and institutional services potentially led to physicians' crumbling wellbeing. This research calls for the remediation of the deteriorating mental health and a restoration of medical profession's advocacy and equity.

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.