1
|
Jakobsen LM, Molewijk B, de Snoo-Trimp J, Svantesson M, Ursin G. What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project. HEC Forum 2024:10.1007/s10730-023-09519-w. [PMID: 38315250 DOI: 10.1007/s10730-023-09519-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 02/07/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena M Jakobsen
- Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Harstad, Norway.
- Faculty of Nursing and Health Science, Nord University, Bodø, Norway.
| | - Bert Molewijk
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Center of Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Janine de Snoo-Trimp
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mia Svantesson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University Health Care Research Centre, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Gøril Ursin
- Faculty of Nursing and Health Science, Nord University, Bodø, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Perin M, Magelssen M, Ghirotto L, De Panfilis L. Evaluating a clinical ethics committee (CEC) implementation process in an oncological research hospital: protocol for a process evaluation study using normalisation process theory (EvaCEC). BMJ Open 2023; 13:e067335. [PMID: 36894200 PMCID: PMC10008162 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067335] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/11/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION A Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) is a multi-professional service whose aim is to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organisations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice.Although CEC are quite common worldwide, their successful implementation in a hospital setting presents many challenges.EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC) will evaluate the implementation of a CEC in a comprehensive cancer centre in Northern Italy 16 months after its establishment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS EvaCEC is a mixed-method study with a retrospective quantitative analysis and a prospective qualitative evaluation by a range of data collection tools to enable the triangulation of data sources and analysis. Quantitative data related to the amount of CEC activities will be collected using the CEC's internal databases. Data on the level of knowledge, use and perception of the CEC will be collected through a survey with closed-ended questions disseminated among all the HPs employed at the healthcare centre. Data will be analysed with descriptive statistics.The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) will be used for the qualitative evaluation to determine whether and how the CEC can be successfully integrated into clinical practice. We will perform one-to-one semistructured interviews and a second online survey with different groups of stakeholders who had different roles in the implementation process of the CEC. Based on NPT concepts, the interviews and the survey will assess the acceptability of the CEC within the local context and needs and expectations to further develop the service. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The protocol has been approved by the local ethics committee. The project is co-chaired by a PhD candidate and by a healthcare researcher with a doctorate in bioethics and expertise in research. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT05466292.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Perin
- Bioethics Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
- PhD Program in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Morten Magelssen
- Centre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Luca Ghirotto
- Qualitative Research Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wallner J. Healthcare Ethics Consultation in Austria: Joining the International Path of Professionalization. THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ETHICS 2023; 34:69-78. [PMID: 36940354 DOI: 10.1086/723427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2023]
Abstract
AbstractHealthcare ethics consultation has been developed, practiced, and analyzed internationally. However, only a few professional standards have evolved globally in this field that would be comparable to standards in other areas of healthcare. This article cannot compensate for this situation. It contributes to the ongoing debate on professionalization by presenting experiences with ethics consultation in Austria, though. After exploring its contexts and providing an overview of one of its primary ethics programs, the article analyzes the underlying assumptions of "ethics consultation" as an essential effort on the path to professionalize ethics consultation.
Collapse
|
4
|
Haltaufderheide J. It's still about ethics, isn't it? JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2022; 48:983-984. [PMID: 36351788 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2022] [Accepted: 10/24/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Joschka Haltaufderheide
- Professorship for Medical Ethics with a Focus on Digitization, University of Potsdam, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Potsdam, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Siegel BD, Taylor LS, Moynihan KM. Towards organisational quality in ethics through patterns and process. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2022; 48:989-990. [PMID: 36396423 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Accepted: 11/10/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Bryan D Siegel
- Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Lisa S Taylor
- Office of Ethics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Katie M Moynihan
- Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Children's Hospital of Westmead, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Woellert K. Klinische Ethik systemisch betrachtet – Vom Einfluss systemischer Grundannahmen und Methoden auf die Gestaltung einer effektiven Ethikberatung. Ethik Med 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s00481-022-00710-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
ZusammenfassungKrankenhäuser müssen sich an der ethischen Qualität ihrer Versorgung messen lassen. Es geht dabei um einen Zustand, in dem allgemein anerkannte moralische Normen in der Patient:innenversorgung konsequent berücksichtigt werden. Damit sind zwei Ebenen angesprochen: die der ethisch-normativen Deutung und die der Gestaltung intra- und interpersonaler Prozesse. Die Klinische Ethik ist die Disziplin, die in der Verbindung beider ihre zentrale Aufgabe sieht. Um sie zu erfüllen, muss Ethikarbeit auf der Basis komplexer Kompetenzen erfolgen. Neben fundiertem Ethikwissen ist das Beherrschen von geeigneten Methoden für die Steuerung solcher Prozesse eine unabdingbare Voraussetzung. Dazu aber ist die Studienlage vergleichsweise dünn. Die vorliegende Arbeit greift dieses Desiderat auf und geht dabei von der Hypothese aus, dass die Systemik einen wichtigen Beitrag zu einer im obigen Sinne effektiven Ethikarbeit leisten kann. Die Darstellung gibt einen Einblick in das systemische Denken und diskutiert die Möglichkeiten, die systemisches Handwerkszeug für die Herausforderungen der Klinischen Ethik bereithält. Die Ausführungen laden dazu ein, über den Einfluss systemischer Grundannahmen und Methoden auf die Gestaltung einer effektiven Ethikarbeit nachzudenken. Darüber hinaus ruft dieser Beitrag dazu auf, die Beratungsmethodik als solche mehr in den Fokus zu rücken.
Collapse
|
7
|
Dittborn M, Portales B, Brierley J. Clinical ethics support services in paediatric practice: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review on structures, interventions and outcomes. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e057867. [PMID: 35396303 PMCID: PMC8996013 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057867] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Clinical ethics support services (CESS) have been developing worldwide with growing interest in evaluating their quality. Paediatric-specific CESSs (p-CESS) have received little attention, and evidence from adult services might not be generalisable. Evidence on service models and practices is crucial to inform further research and debate on quality evaluation and minimum standards for p-CESSs. We aim to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise evidence for p-CESS structures, processes and outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will conduct a mixed-studies systematic review including peer-reviewed empirical studies published in English or Spanish language providing data on the evaluation and/or impact on any aspect of p-CESS. We will search seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, Web of Science and CINHAL, without filters applied. Search terms will be related to "clinical ethics support" AND "paediatrics" AND "structure/process/outcome". Reference and citation list of included studies will be handsearched. A 10% random sample of retrieved titles/abstracts and all full texts will be independently dual-screened. We will conduct narrative and thematic synthesis for quantitative and qualitative data, respectively, following sequential explanatory synthesis guided by Donabedian's framework of structure, process and outcomes. Quality will be assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). The review will be reported using the adapted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence template. Stakeholders will be involved twice in the review process; prior to data extraction and synthesis and after preliminary results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION As a systematic review of published data, no ethical approval is necessary. Results will be published in a relevant academic peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42021280978.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mariana Dittborn
- Paediatric Bioethics Centre, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
- Centro de Bioética, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
| | | | - Joe Brierley
- Paediatric Bioethics Centre, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Haltaufderheide J, Nadolny S, Vollmann J, Schildmann J. It's About Heterogeneity! Strategies to Advance the Evaluation of Ethics Consultation. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2022; 22:56-58. [PMID: 35420519 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2044556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
|
9
|
de Snoo-Trimp JC, van Gurp JLP, Molewijk AC. Conceptualizing the impact of moral case deliberation: a multiple-case study in a health care institution for people with intellectual disabilities. BMC Med Ethics 2022; 23:10. [PMID: 35120509 PMCID: PMC8817498 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00747-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background As moral case deliberations (MCDs) have increasingly been implemented in health care institutions as a form of ethics support, it is relevant to know whether and how MCDs actually contribute to positive changes in care. Insight is needed on what actually happens in daily care practice following MCD sessions. This study aimed at investigating the impact of MCD and exploring how ‘impact of MCD’ should be conceptualized for future research. Methods A multiple-case study was conducted in a care organization for people with intellectual disabilities and/or acquired brain injury, by observing MCD sessions as ‘cases’, followed by interviews with health care professionals concerning the follow-up to these cases, and a focus group with involved MCD facilitators. A conceptual scheme concerning the possible impact formed the basis for analysis: (1) individual moral awareness; (2) the actions of health care professionals; (3) collaboration among health care professionals; (4) the concrete situation of the client; (5) the client’s quality of care and life; (6) the organizational and policy level. Results According to interviewees, their moral awareness and their collaboration, both among colleagues and with clients’ relatives, improved after MCD. Perceived impact on client situation, quality of care/life and the organizational level varied among interviewees or was difficult to define or link to MCD. Three aspects were added to the conceptual scheme concerning the impact of MCD: (a) preparations and expectations prior to the MCD session; (b) a translational step between the conclusions of the MCD session and practical events in the following period, and (c) collaboration with clients’ relatives. A negative impact of MCD was also found on misunderstandings among participants and disappointment about lack of follow-up. Conclusions Concretizing and conceptualizing the ‘impact’ of MCD is complicated as many factors play a role either before or during the transition from MCD to practice. It is important to consider ‘impact’ in a broad sense and to relate it to the goals and context of the MCD in question. Future studies in this field should pay additional attention to the preparations, content and process involved in ethics support, including clients’ and relatives’ experiences. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00747-2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C de Snoo-Trimp
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - J L P van Gurp
- Department IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - A C Molewijk
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Center of Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|