Aims and harvest of moral case deliberation

Integrating the Teaching and Assessment of Moral Reasoning into Undergraduate Medical Education to Advance Health Equity

Moral reasoning skills among medical students have regressed despite the implementation of ethics teachings in medical education curricula. This inability to retain moral reasoning capability is attributed to difficulty transitioning to the principled thinking stage of moral reasoning as well as worsening of ethical decision-making skills during clerkship education due to the "hidden curriculum." Prior studies have examined the efficacy of individual strategies for moral education, but there is insufficient analysis comparing multiple educational interventions and moral reasoning assessment tools. The role and impact of these instruments in medical curricula for the advancement of health equity is reviewed.

Descriptions of long-term impact from inter-professional ethics communication in groups

BACKGROUND

On a daily basis, healthcare professionals deal with various ethical issues and it can be difficult to determine how to act best. Clinical ethics support (CES) has been developed to provide support for healthcare professionals dealing with complex ethical issues. A long-term perspective of participating in inter-professional dialogue and reflective-based CES sessions is seemingly sparse in the literature.

RESEARCH AIM

The aim was to describe experiences of impact of Inter-professional Ethics Communication in groups (IEC) based on Habermas' theory of communicative actions, after 6 months from the perspective of an inter-professional team.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A qualitative inductive approach was chosen, and individual interviews (n = 13) were conducted. Interview data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants, 10 females and two males, represented assistant nurses, registered nurses, physicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, welfare officers and psychologists. Each had attended at least four IEC sessions.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå, Sweden, and it has been undertaken in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.

FINDINGS

Overall, the descriptions expressed a perceived achievement of a deepened and integrated ethical awareness that increased the participants' awareness of ethically difficult situations as well as their own ethical thinking, actions and approaches in daily work. Perspectives were shared and the team become more welded. They carried the memories of the reflections within them, which was perceived as supportive when encountered new ethically situations.

DISCUSSION

Putting words to unarticulated thoughts may stimulate repeated reflections, leading to new insights and alternative thoughts.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of IEC sessions 6 months following the last session can be described as an incorporated knowledge that enables actions in ethically difficult situations based on an ethical awareness both at a 'We-level' and an 'I-level'.

Two years of ethics reflection groups about coercion in psychiatry. Measuring variation within employees' normative attitudes, user involvement and the handling of disagreement

BACKGROUND

Research on the impact of ethics reflection groups (ERG) (also called moral case deliberations (MCD)) is complex and scarce. Within a larger study, two years of ERG sessions have been used as an intervention to stimulate ethical reflection about the use of coercive measures. We studied changes in: employees' attitudes regarding the use of coercion, team competence, user involvement, team cooperation and the handling of disagreement in teams.

METHODS

We used panel data in a longitudinal design study to measure variation in survey scores from multidisciplinary employees from seven departments within three Norwegian mental health care institutions at three time points (T0-T1-T2). Mixed models were used to account for dependence of data in persons who participated more than once.

RESULTS

In total, 1068 surveys (from 817 employees who did and did not participate in ERG) were included in the analyses. Of these, 7.6% (N = 62) responded at three points in time, 15.5% (N = 127) at two points, and 76.8% (N = 628) once. On average, over time, respondents who participated in ERG viewed coercion more strongly as offending (p < 0.05). Those who presented a case in the ERG sessions showed lower scores on User Involvement (p < 0.001), Team Cooperation (p < 0.01) and Constructive Disagreement (p < 0.01). We observed significant differences in outcomes between individuals from different departments, as well as between different professions. Initial significant changes due to frequency of participation in ERG and case presentation in ERG did not remain statistically significant after adjustment for Departments and Professions. Differences were generally small in absolute terms, possibly due to the low amount of longitudinal data.

CONCLUSIONS

This study measured specific intervention-related outcome parameters for describing the impact of clinical ethics support (CES). Structural implementation of ERGs or MCDs seems to contribute to employees reporting a more critical attitude towards coercion. Ethics support is a complex intervention and studying changes over time is complex in itself. Several recommendations for strengthening the outcomes of future CES evaluation studies are discussed. CES evaluation studies are important, since-despite the intrinsic value of participating in ERG or MCD-CES inherently aims, and should aim, at improving clinical practices.

The Contribution of Moral Case Deliberation to Teaching RCR to PhD Students

Teaching responsible conduct of research (RCR) to PhD students is crucial for fostering responsible research practice. In this paper, we show how the use of Moral Case Deliberation-a case reflection method used in the Amsterdam UMC RCR PhD course-is particularity valuable to address three goals of RCR education: (1) making students aware of, and internalize, RCR principles and values, (2) supporting reflection on good conduct in personal daily practice, and (3) developing students' dialogical attitude and skills so that they can deliberate on RCR issues when they arise. What makes this method relevant for RCR education is the focus on values and personal motivations, the structured reflection on real experiences and dilemmas and the cultivation of participants' dialogical skills. During these structured conversations, students reflect on the personal motives that drive them to adhere to the principles of good science, thereby building connections between those principles and their personal values and motives. Moreover, by exploring personal questions and dilemmas related to RCR, they learn how to address these with colleagues and supervisors. The reflection on personal experiences with RCR issues and questions combined with the study of relevant normative frameworks, support students to act responsibly and to pursue RCR in their day-to-day research practice in spite of difficulties and external constraints.

Bulgaria at the onset of clinical ethics consultation

BACKGROUND

Over the years, Bulgarian bioethics has been mainly an academic enterprise and fallen short of providing health professionals with skills for ethical decision-making. Clinical ethics support (CES) was piloted by the author through two bottom-up models - METAP (Modular, Ethical, Treatment, Allocation of resources, Process) and MCD (Moral Case Deliberation).

AIMS

This paper aims to present and analyse developments in the area of clinical ethics and the first experiences in CES in Bulgaria.

METHODOLOGY

The project reported here included a review of relevant literature on CES methods and evaluation and a documentary review of data from two CES pilot projects: METAP and MCD.

RESULTS

Most of the 69 METAP ethics meetings reviewed were first time meetings (88,4%); the average duration was 36 min and the average number of participants was four (44,9%). The meetings were organized in response to cases of severely or critically ill patients. The ethical dilemmas included choice of treatment (31,9%) and conflicts with the patient or their relatives (23,2%). Consensus was achieved in 34,8% of the cases. The situation was clarified with the patient (27,5%) and within the team (15,9%). The rights and obligations of both sides were discussed in 7,2% of the cases. The experience of the members of the Bulgarian Association of Bioethics and Clinical Ethics (BABCE) with MCD was also presented to justify the inference about the applicability of the two CES models in a Bulgarian context.

CONCLUSION

Among Eastern European countries Bulgaria has made progress in CES. Both METAP and MCD have been found to be useful methods.

What outcomes of moral case deliberations are perceived important for healthcare professionals to handle moral challenges? A national cross-sectional study in paediatric oncology

Background

In paediatric oncology, healthcare professionals face moral challenges. Clinical ethics support services, such as moral case deliberation (MCD), aim to assist them in dealing with these challenges. Yet, healthcare professionals can have different expectations and goals related to clinical ethics support services.

Methods

In this study, the perceptions held by healthcare professionals (nursing assistants, registered nurses, physicians, and others) regarding the importance of possible outcomes of MCDs, prior to implementation of MCDs, were investigated. A multisite, cross-sectional, quantitative study was performed at all six Paediatric Oncology Centres in Sweden. Healthcare professionals answered the Euro-MCD instrument with 26 potential MCD outcomes using a scale from Not important (1) to Very important (4). Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were carried out.

Results

All outcomes were rated high, i.e., between 3.12 and 3.78. More open communication, developing skills to analyse ethically difficult situations, better mutual understanding, and deciding on concrete actions were rated as most important. Understanding of ethical theories and critical examination of policies were rated less important. Most often nursing assistants rated higher and physicians lower than the other professions did. Women and participants without previous experience of MCDs perceived outcomes as more important. There were differences between centres as one centre had significantly higher, and one centre had significantly lower ratings compared to the others.

Conclusion

It is clear that healthcare professionals want MCDs to improve teamwork and skills in order to analyse and manage ethically difficult situations. When comparing to previous research about important MCD outcomes, there were similarities in what healthcare professionals consider to be important when handling moral challenges regardless of country and potential differences in healthcare settings and systems, such as paediatric vs. adult 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.

Framework for evaluation research on clinical ethical case interventions: the role of ethics consultants

Evaluation of clinical ethical case consultations has been discussed as an important research task in recent decades. A rigid framework of evaluation is essential to improve quality of consultations and, thus, quality of patient care. Different approaches to evaluate those services appropriately and to determine adequate empirical endpoints have been proposed. A key challenge is to provide an answer to the question as to which empirical endpoints-and for what reasons-should be considered when evaluating the quality of a service. In this paper, we argue for an approach that adopts the role of ethics consultants as its point of departure. In a first step, we describe empirical and ethical characteristics of evaluating clinical ethical case. We show that the mode of action and the explicit normative character of the interventions constitute two characteristics which pose challenges to the selection of appropriate quality criteria and require special attention. In a second step, we outline the way in which an analysis of the role of ethics consultants in the context of a clinical ethical case consultation services can account for the existing challenges by linking empirically measurable endpoints with normative theory. Finally, we discuss practical implications of our model for evaluation research.

Morisprudence: a theoretical framework for studying the relationship linking moral case deliberation, organisational learning and quality improvement

There is a claim that clinical ethics support services (CESS) improve healthcare quality within healthcare organisations. However, there is lack of strong evidence supporting this claim. Rather, the current focus is on the quality of CESS themselves or on individual learning outcomes. In response, this article proposes a theoretical framework leading to empirical hypotheses that describe the relationship between a specific type of CESS, moral case deliberation and the quality of care at the organisational level. We combine insights from the literature on CESS, organisational learning and quality improvement and argue that moral case deliberation causes healthcare professionals to acquire practical wisdom. At the organisational level, where improving quality is a continuous and collective endeavour, this practical wisdom can be aggregated into morisprudence, which is an ongoing formulation of moral judgements across cases encountered within the organisation. Focusing on the development of morisprudence enables refined scrutinisation of CESS-related quality claims.

Combining rules and dialogue: exploring stakeholder perspectives on preventing sexual boundary violations in mental health and disability care organizations

Background

Sexual boundary violations (SBV) in healthcare are harmful and exploitative sexual transgressions in the professional–client relationship. Persons with mental health issues or intellectual disabilities, especially those living in residential settings, are especially vulnerable to SBV because they often receive long-term intimate care. Promoting good sexual health and preventing SBV in these care contexts is a moral and practical challenge for healthcare organizations.

Methods

We carried out a qualitative interview study with 16 Dutch policy advisors, regulators, healthcare professionals and other relevant experts to explore their perspectives on preventing SBV in mental health and disability care organizations. We used inductive thematic analysis to interpret our data.

Results

We found three main themes on how healthcare organizations can prevent SBV in mental health and disability care: (1) setting rules and regulations, (2) engaging in dialogue about sexuality, and (3) addressing systemic and organizational dimensions.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that preventing SBV in mental health and disability care organizations necessitates setting suitable rules and regulations and facilitating dialogue about positive aspects of sexuality and intimacy, as well as about boundaries, and inappropriate behaviors or feelings. Combining both further requires organizational policies and practices that promote transparency and reflection, and focus on creating a safe environment. Our findings will help prevent SBV and promote sexual health in mental health and disability care organizations.

Shared decision-making in the ICU from the perspective of physicians, nurses and patients: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

To identify views, experiences and needs for shared decision-making (SDM) in the intensive care unit (ICU) according to ICU physicians, ICU nurses and former ICU patients and their close family members.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING

Two Dutch tertiary centres.

PARTICIPANTS

19 interviews were held with 29 participants: seven with ICU physicians from two tertiary centres, five with ICU nurses from one tertiary centre and nine with former ICU patients, of whom seven brought one or two of their close family members who had been involved in the ICU stay.

RESULTS

Three themes, encompassing a total of 16 categories, were identified pertaining to struggles of ICU physicians, needs of former ICU patients and their family members and the preferred role of ICU nurses. The main struggles ICU physicians encountered with SDM include uncertainty about long-term health outcomes, time constraints, feeling pressure because of having final responsibility and a fear of losing control. Former patients and family members mainly expressed aspects they missed, such as not feeling included in ICU treatment decisions and a lack of information about long-term outcomes and recovery. ICU nurses reported mainly opportunities to strengthen their role in incorporating non-medical information in the ICU decision-making process and as liaison between physicians and patients and family.

CONCLUSIONS

Interviewed stakeholders reported struggles, needs and an elucidation of their current and preferred role in the SDM process in the ICU. This study signals an essential need for more long-term outcome information, a more informal inclusion of patients and their family members in decision-making processes and a more substantial role for ICU nurses to integrate patients' values and needs in the decision-making process.

Virtue-based ethics and integrity of research: train-the-trainer programme for upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (VIRT2UE)

Background: Recognising the importance of addressing ethics and research integrity (ERI) in Europe, in 2017, the All European Academies (ALLEA) published a revised and updated European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC). Consistent application of the ECoC by researchers across Europe will require its widespread dissemination, as well as an innovative training programme and novel tools to enable researchers to truly uphold and internalise the principles and practices listed in the Code.

Aim: VIRT2UE aims to develop a sustainable train-the-trainer blended learning programme enabling contextualised ERI teaching across Europe focusing on understanding and upholding the principles and practices of the ECoC.

Vision: The VIRT2UE project recognises that researchers not only need to have knowledge of the ECoC, but also to be able to truly uphold and internalise the principles underpinning the code. They need to learn how to integrate them into their everyday practice and understand how to act in concrete situations. VIRT2UE addresses this challenge by providing ERI trainers and researchers with an innovative blended (i.e. combined online and off-line approaches) learning programme that draws on a toolbox of educational resources and incorporates an e-learning course (including a YouTube channel) and face-to-face sessions designed to foster moral virtues. ERI trainers and researchers from academia and industry will have open access to online teaching material. Moreover, ERI trainers will learn how to facilitate face-to-face sessions of researchers, which focus on learning how to apply the content of the teaching material to concrete situations in daily practice.

Objectives: VIRT2UE’s work packages (WP) will: conduct a conceptual mapping amongst stakeholders to identify and rank the virtues which are essential for good scientific practice and their relationship to the principles and practices of the ECoC (WP1); identify and consult ERI trainers and the wider scientific community to understand existing capacity and deficiencies in ERI educational resources (WP2); develop the face-to-face component of the train-the-trainer programme which provides trainers with tools to foster researchers’ virtues and promote the ECoC and iteratively develop the programme based on evaluations (WP3); produce educational materials for online learning by researchers and trainers (WP4); implement and disseminate the train-the-trainer programme across Europe, ensuring the training of sufficient trainers for each country and build capacity and consistency by focusing on underdeveloped regions and unifying fragmented efforts (WP5); and develop the online training platform and user interface, which will be instrumental in evaluation of trainers’ and researchers’ needs and project sustainability (WP6).

Impact: The VIRT2UE training programme will promote consistent application of the ECoC across Europe. The programme will affect behaviour on the individual level of trainers and researchers – simultaneously developing an understanding of the ECoC and other ERI issues, whilst also developing scientific virtues, enabling the application of the acquired knowledge to concrete situations and complex moral dilemmas. Through a dedicated embedding strategy, the programme will also have an impact on an institutional level. The train-the-trainer approach multiplies the impact of the programme by reaching current and future European ERI trainers and, subsequently, the researchers they train.

Does participation in ethics discussions have an impact on ethics decision-making? A cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals in paediatric oncology

PURPOSE

The overall aim of this study was to describe perceptions of the decision-making process in relation to participation/non-participation in ethics discussions among healthcare professionals in paediatric oncology.

METHODS

Healthcare professionals, working at three paediatric units where ethics discussions where performed answered a study-specific questionnaire focusing on perceptions of involvement, influence, responsibility and understanding of ethics decision-making. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, non-parametric paired t-tests and correlation tests.

RESULTS

Participation in ethics discussions was related to perceptions of greater involvement and the possibility of influencing decisions, as well as formal/shared responsibility for the ethics decisions related to patient care. Medical doctors and registered nurses perception of involvement in decisions, possibility to influence and responsibility decreased when they were not present during the ethics discussion or when no ethics discussion was conducted at all. Healthcare professionals had a generally good understanding of the ethical issues and the ethics decisions. The whole group considered medical doctors to be the most important participants in the ethics discussions, followed by patients/family. Healthcare professionals wanted more teamwork and viewed ethics discussions as very helpful for teamwork when dealing with ethical issues in paediatric oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethics discussions in paediatric oncology practice increases the involvement within and the understanding of the decision-making process about ethical decisions. The understanding is not always dependent on participation, indicating a great trust in team members. Based on these findings the implementation of a structure for ethics support in paediatric oncology where patients/families are integrated is recommended.

A Qualitative Study on Experiences and Perspectives of Members of a Dutch Medical Research Ethics Committee

The aim of this research was to gain insight into the experiences and perspectives of individual members of a Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) regarding their individual roles and possible tensions within and between these roles. We conducted a qualitative interview study among members of a large MREC, supplemented by a focus group meeting. Respondents distinguish five roles: protector, facilitator, educator, advisor and assessor. Central to the role of protector is securing valid informed consent and a proper risk-benefit analysis. The role of facilitator implies that respondents want to think along with and assist researchers in order to help medical science progress. As educators, the respondents want to raise ethical and methodological awareness of researchers. The role of advisor implies that respondents bring in their own expertise. The role of assessor points to contributing to the overall evaluation of the research proposal. Various tensions were identified within and between roles. Within the role of protector, a tension is experienced between paternalism and autonomy. Between the role of protector and facilitator tensions occur when the value of a study is questioned while risks and burdens for the subjects are negligible. Within the role of assessor, a tension is felt between the implicit nature of judgments and the need for more explicit formulations. Awareness of various roles and responsibilities may prevent one-sided views on MREC work, not only by members themselves, but also by researchers. Tensions within and between the roles require reflection by MREC members.

Safe and competent nursing care: An argument for a minimum standard?

There is no agreed minimum standard with regard to what is considered safe, competent nursing care. Limited resources and organizational constraints make it challenging to develop a minimum standard. As part of their everyday practice, nurses have to ration nursing care and prioritize what care to postpone, leave out, and/or omit. In developed countries where public healthcare is tax-funded, a minimum level of healthcare is a patient right; however, what this entails in a given patient's actual situation is unclear. Thus, both patients and nurses would benefit from the development of a minimum standard of nursing care. Clarity on this matter is also of ethical and legal concern. In this article, we explore the case for developing a minimum standard to ensure safe and competent nursing care services. Any such standard must encompass knowledge of basic principles of clinical nursing and preservation of moral values, as well as managerial issues, such as manpower planning, skill-mix, and time to care. In order for such standards to aid in providing safe and competent nursing care, they should be in compliance with accepted evidence-based nursing knowledge, based on patients' needs and legal rights to healthcare and on nurses' codes of ethics. That is, a minimum standard must uphold a satisfactory level of quality in terms of both professionalism and ethics. Rather than being fixed, the minimum standard should be adjusted according to patients' needs in different settings and may thus be different in different contexts and countries.

Field-Testing the Euro-MCD Instrument: Important Outcomes According to Participants Before and After Moral Case Deliberation

Ethics support services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) intend to support healthcare professionals in ethically difficult situations. To assess outcomes of MCD, the Euro-MCD Instrument has been developed. Field studies to test this instrument are needed and have been conducted, examining important outcomes before MCD participation and experienced outcomes. The current study aimed to (1) describe how participants’ perceive the importance of MCD outcomes after MCD; (2) compare these perceptions with those before MCD participation; and (3) test the factor structure of these outcomes. Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch healthcare professionals rated the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument after four and eight MCDs. Ratings were compared with those before MCD participation using paired and independent samples t-tests. The factor structure was tested using exploratory factor analyses. After 4 and 8 MCDs, 443 respectively 247 respondents completed the instrument. More than 69% rated all MCD outcomes as ‘quite’ or ‘very’ important, especially outcomes from Enhanced Collaboration, Improved Moral Reflexivity and Improved Moral Attitude. Significant differences for 16 outcomes regarding ratings before and after MCD participation were not considered meaningful. Factor analyses suggested three categories, which seemingly resemble the domains Improved Moral Reflexivity, Enhanced Collaboration and a combination of Improved Moral Attitude and Enhanced Emotional Support. After participation in MCDs, respondents confirmed the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument. The question on perceived importance and the categorization of outcomes need reconsideration. The revised instrument will be presented elsewhere, based on all field studies and theoretical reflections.

Addressing harm in moral case deliberation: the views and experiences of facilitators

BACKGROUND

In healthcare practice, care providers are confronted with decisions they have to make, directly affecting patients and inevitably harmful. These decisions are tragic by nature. This study investigates the role of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) in dealing with tragic situations. In MCD, caregivers reflect on real-life dilemmas, involving a choice between two ethical claims, both resulting in moral damage and harm. One element of the reflection process is making explicit the harm involved in the choice. How harmful are our decisions? We investigated how facilitators of MCD experience the importance of addressing harm in MCD and what participants learn from reflecting on harm.

METHODS

The study was qualitative, focusing on the views and experiences of the facilitators of MCD. Semi-structured interviews (N = 12) were conducted with facilitators of MCD. The research focuses on the subjective experiences of facilitators. Grounded Theory was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The results show two main categories. The first concerns the awareness of tragedy. Within this category, five themes were discerned: making explicit that there is no solution, visualizing consequences, uncovering pain, focusing on emotion, and exploring perspectives on harm. The second category concerns the support for healthcare professionals in dealing with the tragedy of the choices they face. In this category, five themes came forward: acknowledging, offering comfort, managing harm, consideration through dialogue and repairing harm.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that addressing harm in MCD in tragic situations provides an important moral learning opportunity for participants. By formulating and becoming aware of harm, MCD aids healthcare professionals in the task they are faced with, namely making difficult and painful choices. MCD helps healthcare professionals to repair moral damage, making clear at the same time that harm cannot be undone.

Moral Dilemmas in Contact-Based Care: The Relevance of Moral Case Deliberation for Forensic Psychiatry

Currently, forensic psychiatry shows a shift from a control-based to a contact-based approach. Working from contact may, however, entail new moral questions and dilemmas. How to secure safety when focusing on contact? Does contact imply being physically close to the patient, or should one refrain from intimate relations? In order to help care professionals to deal with these moral issues, clinical ethics support can be useful. A specific approach in clinical ethics support is moral case deliberation (MCD). An MCD is a structured dialogue between professionals on a moral issue they experience in practice, structured by a conversation method and guided by a facilitator. In this article, we describe the background and procedures of MCD. Furthermore, we present a case example in which care professionals reflect on the moral question of whether provision of care in forensic psychiatry may entail physical closeness. The MCD shows that an open conversation results in a better understanding of different perspectives and creates the basis for finding a joint way to proceed in the case. We conclude that MCD can enable professionals to reflect on moral issues and develop shared values in forensic psychiatry.

Lessons learned from implementing a responsive quality assessment of clinical ethics support

BACKGROUND

Various forms of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) have been developed in health care organizations. Over the past years, increasing attention has been paid to the question of how to foster the quality of ethics support. In the Netherlands, a CES quality assessment project based on a responsive evaluation design has been implemented. CES practitioners themselves reflected upon the quality of ethics support within each other's health care organizations. This study presents a qualitative evaluation of this Responsive Quality Assessment (RQA) project.

METHODS

CES practitioners' experiences with and perspectives on the RQA project were collected by means of ten semi-structured interviews. Both the data collection and the qualitative data analysis followed a stepwise approach, including continuous peer review and careful documentation of the decisions.

RESULTS

The main findings illustrate the relevance of the RQA with regard to fostering the quality of CES by connecting to context specific issues, such as gaining support from upper management and to solidify CES services within health care organizations. Based on their participation in the RQA, CES practitioners perceived a number of changes regarding CES in Dutch health care organizations after the RQA: acknowledgement of the relevance of CES for the quality of care; CES practices being more formalized; inspiration for developing new CES-related activities and more self-reflection on existing CES practices.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of the RQA shows that this method facilitates an open learning process by actively involving CES practitioners and their concrete practices. Lessons learned include that "servant leadership" and more intensive guidance of RQA participants may help to further enhance both the critical dimension and the learning process within RQA.

Hospital ethics reflection groups: a learning and development resource for clinical practice

Background

An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a number of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the significance of ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark.

Methods

This is a qualitative action research study, including systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers. Short written descriptions of the ethical challenges presented in the ERGs also informed the analysis of significance.

Results

A recurring ethical challenge for clinicians, in a total of 63 cases described and assessed in 3 ethical reflection groups, is to strike a balance between respect for patient autonomy, paternalistic responsibility, professional responsibilities and institutional values. Both in psychiatric and general hospital departments, the study participants report a positive impact of ERG, which can be divided into three categories: 1) Significance for patients, 2) Significance for clinicians, and 3) Significance for ward managers. In wards characterized by short-time patient admissions, the cases assessed were retrospective and the beneficiaries of improved dialogue mainly future patients rather than the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge presented. In wards with longer admissions, the patients concerned also benefitted from the dialogue in the ERG.

Conclusion

This study indicates a positive significance and impact of ERGs; constituting an interdisciplinary learning resource for clinicians, creating significance for themselves, the ward managers and the organization. By introducing specific examples, this study indicates that ERGs have significance for the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge, but mostly indirectly through learning among clinicians and development of clinical practice. More research is needed to further investigate the impact of ERGs seen from the perspectives of patients and relatives.

Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: a Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals' priorities

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument (Euro-MCD) instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation.

METHODS

A North European field survey among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used.

RESULTS

All outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%-97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. 'Better interactions with patient/family' emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as moral reflexivity and moral attitude outcomes, should still be included. In the future, a combination of empirical findings (practice) and normative reflection (theories) will contribute to the revision of the instrument.

A pragmatist approach to clinical ethics support: overcoming the perils of ethical pluralism

In today's pluralistic society, clinical ethics consultation cannot count on a pre-given set of rules and principles to be applied to a specific situation, because such an approach would deny the existence of different and divergent backgrounds by imposing a dogmatic and transcultural morality. Clinical ethics support (CES) needs to overcome this lack of foundations and conjugate the respect for the difference at stake with the necessity to find shared and workable solutions for ethical issues encountered in clinical practice. We argue that a pragmatist approach to CES, based on the philosophical theories of William James, John Dewey, and Charles Sanders Peirce, can help to achieve the goal of reaching practical solutions for moral problems in the context of today's clinical environment, characterized by ethical pluralism. In this article, we outline a pragmatist theoretical framework for CES. Furthermore, we will show that moral case deliberation, making use of the dilemma method, can be regarded an example of a pragmatist approach to CES.

Implementing ethics reflection groups in hospitals: an action research study evaluating barriers and promotors

Background

An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a range of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the implementation process of interdisciplinary ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ERG implementation to include both psychiatric and general hospital departments.

Methods

The implementation and evaluation strategies are inspired by action research, using a qualitative approach and systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers.

Results

The implementation process was influenced by both structural factors and factors related to clinicians having different values, interests and experiences. Structural barriers and promotors in the process to implement ERG included the following sub-categories: Organizational factors, recruitment and training of ethics facilitators, the deliberation model, planning and recruitment of participants to the ERGs, the support of the ward managers and the project group. Barriers and promotors found among clinicians included the following sub-categories: Expectations and pre-understandings of ERGs, understandings of a physician’s job, challenges experienced by ethics facilitators. At the end of the study, when it was decided that the ERGs should be continued, the implementation strategies were remodeled by the participants to meet new challenges.

Conclusion

The study of ERG implementation identified important structural and professional barriers and promotors that are likely to be relevant to anyone wanting to implement ethics support services across various types of healthcare services.

Meeting in a ‘free-zone’: Clinical ethical support in integrated heart-failure and palliative care

Background:

Integrating heart-failure and palliative care combines expertise from two cultures, life-saving cardiology and palliative care, and involves ethically difficult situations that have to be considered from various perspectives. We found no studies describing experiences of clinical ethical support (CES) in integrated cardiology and palliative care teams.

Objective:

Our aim is to describe experiences of CES among professionals after a period of three years working in a multidisciplinary team in integrated heart-failure and palliative homecare.

Method:

The study design was descriptive qualitative, comprising interviews with seven professionals from one integrated heart-failure and palliative care team who received CES over a three-year period. The interview data were subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Results:

The CES was found to offer possibilities for meeting in an ethical ‘free-zone’ where the participants could relate to each other beyond their various professional roles and specialties. The trust within the team seemed to increase and the participants were confident enough to express their points of view. Together they developed an integrated understanding, and acquired more knowledge and a comprehensive view of the ethically difficult situation of concern. The CES sessions were considered a means of becoming better prepared to deal with ethical care issues and developing action strategies to apply in practice, from shared standpoints.

Conclusion:

Participating in CES was experienced as meeting in an ethical ‘free-zone’ and seemed to be a means of facilitating integration of palliative and heart-failure care.

Development, validity and reliability testing the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

An ethical climate has been described as a working climate embracing shared perceptions about morally correct behaviour concerning ethical issues. Various ethical climate questionnaires have been developed and validated for different contexts, but no questionnaire has been found concerning the ethical climate from an inter-professional perspective in a healthcare context. The Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire, based on Habermas' four requirements for a democratic dialogue, attempts to assess and measure the ethical climate at various inter-professional workplaces. This study aimed to present the construction of and to test the psychometric properties of the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire.

METHOD

An expert group of six researchers, skilled in ethics, evaluated the content validity. The questionnaire was tested among 355 healthcare workers at three hospitals in Sweden. A parallel analysis (PA), an exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were performed.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The participants included in the psychometric analysis were informed about the study, asked to participate in person and informed that they could withdraw at any time without giving any reason. They were also assured of confidentiality in the reporting of the results.

FINDINGS

The parallel analysis (PA) recommended one factor as a solution. The initial exploratory factor analysis with a four-factor solution showed low concordance with a four-factor model. Cronbach's alpha varied from 0.75 to 0.82; however, since two factors only consisted of one item, alpha could not be reported. Cronbach's alpha for the entire scale showed good homogeneity (α = 0.86). A confirmatory factory analysis was carried out based on the four requirements and showed a goodness-of-fit after deleting two items. After deletion of these items, Cronbach's alpha was 0.82.

DISCUSSION

Based on the exploratory factor analysis, we suggest that the scale should be treated as a one-factor model. The result indicates that the instrument is unidimensional and assesses ethical climate as a whole.

CONCLUSION

After testing the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire, we found support for the validity and reliability of the instrument. We found the 10-item version of Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire satisfactory. However, we found no support for measuring different dimensions and, therefore, this instrument should be seen as assessing ethical climate as of whole.

Relational autonomy in the care of the vulnerable: health care professionals' reasoning in Moral Case Deliberation (MCD)

In Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), healthcare professionals discuss ethically difficult patient situations in their daily practice. There is a lack of knowledge regarding the content of MCD and there is a need to shed light on this ethical reflection in the midst of clinical practice. Thus, the aim of the study was to describe the content of healthcare professionals' moral reasoning during MCD. The design was qualitative and descriptive, and data consisted of 22 audio-recorded inter-professional MCDs, analysed with content analysis. The moral reasoning centred on how to strike the balance between personal convictions about what constitutes good care, and the perceived dissonant care preferences held by the patient. The healthcare professionals deliberated about good care in relation to demands considered to be unrealistic, justifications for influencing the patient, the incapacitated patient's nebulous interests, and coping with the conflict between using coercion to achieve good while protecting human dignity. Furthermore, as a basis for the reasoning, the healthcare professionals reflected on how to establish a responsible relationship with the vulnerable person. This comprised acknowledging the patient as a susceptible human being, protecting dignity and integrity, defining their own moral responsibility, and having patience to give the patient and family time to come to terms with illness and declining health. The profound struggle to respect the patient's autonomy in clinical practice can be understood through the concept of relational autonomy, to try to secure both patients' influence and at the same time take responsibility for their needs as vulnerable humans.

Defining and categorizing outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD): concept mapping with experienced MCD participants

BACKGROUND

To support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations, Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) are increasingly implemented. To assess the impact of CES, it is important to evaluate outcomes. Despite general claims about outcomes from MCD experts and some qualitative research, there exists no conceptual analysis of outcomes yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically define and categorize MCD outcomes. An additional aim was to compare these outcomes with the outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument from 2014, to further validate this Instrument.

METHODS

The concept mapping method was used and involves qualitative and quantitative steps including brainstorming, individual structuring, computation of concept maps (by principal component analysis and cluster analysis), group interpretation and utilization. In total, 12 experienced MCD participants from a variety of professional backgrounds participated in two sessions.

RESULTS

The focus group brainstorm resulted in a list of 85 possible MCD outcomes, of which a point map and concept maps were constructed. After a thorough discussion of each cluster, final consensus was reached on the names and position of 8 clusters of MCD outcomes: 1) Organisation and Policy; 2) Team development; 3) Personal development focused on the Other Person; 4) Personal development as Professional, focused on Skills; 5) Personal development as Professional, focused on Knowledge; 6) Personal development as an Individual; 7) Perception and Connection; and 8) Concrete action.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explored and categorized MCD outcomes in a concept mapping focus group. When comparing the results with the Euro-MCD Instrument, our study confirms that outcomes of MCD can be categorized in clusters referring to the organisational level, team development, personal development (both as an individual and a professional) and the concrete case-level. In developing CES evaluation tools, it is important to be explicit if an outcome refers to the individual or the team, to knowledge or skills, to the organisation or the specific case. The findings will be used in the further validation of the Euro-MCD Instrument. The current study further contributes to the field of evaluating CES in general and defining outcomes of MCD in particular.

Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review

BACKGROUND

An important and supposedly impactful form of clinical ethics support is moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical evidence, however, is limited with regard to its actual impact. With this literature review, we aim to investigate the empirical evidence of MCD, thereby a) informing the practice, and b) providing a focus for further research on and development of MCD in healthcare settings.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science (June 2016). Both the data collection and the qualitative data analysis followed a stepwise approach, including continuous peer review and careful documentation of our decisions. The qualitative analysis was supported by ATLAS.ti.

RESULTS

Based on a qualitative analysis of 25 empirical papers, we identified four clusters of themes: 1) facilitators and barriers in the preparation and context of MCD, i.e., a safe and open atmosphere created by a facilitator, a concrete case, commitment of participants, a focus on the moral dimension, and a supportive organization; 2) changes that are brought about on a personal and inter-professional level, with regard to professional's feelings of relief, relatedness and confidence; understanding of the perspectives of colleagues, one's own perspective and the moral issue at stake; and awareness of the moral dimension of one's work and awareness of the importance of reflection; 3) changes that are brought about in caring for patients and families; and 4) changes that are brought about on an organizational level.

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that MCD brings about changes in practice, mostly for the professional in inter-professional interactions. Most reported changes are considered positive, although challenges, frustrations and absence of change were also reported. Empirical evidence of a concrete impact on the quality of patient care is limited and is mostly based on self-reports. With patient-focused and methodologically sound qualitative research, the practice and the value of MCD in healthcare settings can be better understood, thus making a stronger case for this kind of ethics support.

The significance of ethics reflection groups in mental health care: a focus group study among health care professionals

BACKGROUND

Professionals within the mental health services face many ethical dilemmas and challenging situations regarding the use of coercion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the significance of participating in systematic ethics reflection groups focusing on ethical challenges related to coercion.

METHODS

In 2013 and 2014, 20 focus group interviews with 127 participants were conducted. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. The analysis is inspired by the concept of 'bricolage' which means our approach was inductive.

RESULTS

Most participants report positive experiences with participating in ethics reflection groups: A systematic and well-structured approach to discuss ethical challenges, increased consciousness of formal and informal coercion, a possibility to challenge problematic concepts, attitudes and practices, improved professional competence and confidence, greater trust within the team, more constructive disagreement and room for internal critique, less judgmental reactions and more reasoned approaches, and identification of potential for improvement and alternative courses of action. On several wards, the participation of psychiatrists and psychologists in the reflection groups was missing. The impact of the perceived lack of safety in reflection groups should not be underestimated. Sometimes the method for ethics reflection was utilised in a rigid way. Direct involvement of patients and family was missing.

CONCLUSION

This focus group study indicates the potential of ethics reflection groups to create a moral space in the workplace that promotes critical, reflective and collaborative moral deliberations. Future research, with other designs and methodologies, is needed to further investigate the impact of ethics reflection groups on improving health care practices.

How to succeed with ethics reflection groups in community healthcare? Professionals’ perceptions

Background:

Healthcare personnel in the municipal healthcare systems experience many ethical challenges in their everyday work. In Norway, 243 municipalities participated in a national ethics project, aimed to increase ethical competence in municipal healthcare services. In this study, we wanted to map out what participants in ethics reflection groups experienced as promoters or as barriers to successful reflection.

Objectives:

To examine what the staff experience as promoters or as barriers to successful ethics reflection.

Research design:

The study has a qualitative design, where 56 participants in municipal healthcare participated in 10 different focus-group interviews.

Ethical considerations:

The data collection was based on the participants’ informed consent and approved by the Data Protection Official of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data.

Results:

The informants had different experiences from ethics reflection group. Nevertheless, we found that there were several factors that were consistently mentioned: competence, facilitator’s role, ethics reflection groups organizing, and organizational support were all experienced as promoters and as a significant effect on ethics reflection groups. The absence of such factors would constitute important barriers to successful ethics reflection.

Discussion:

The results are coincident with other studies, and indicate some conditions that may increase the possibility to succeed with ethics reflection groups. A systematic approach seems to be important, the systematics of the actual reflections, but also in the organization of ethics reflection group at the workplace. Community healthcare is characterized by organizational instabilities as many vacancies, high workloads, and lack of predictability. This can be a hinder for ethics reflection group.

Conclusion:

Both internal and external factors seem to influence the organization of ethics reflection group. The municipalities’ instabilities challenging this work, and perceived as a clear inhibitor for the development. The participants experienced that the facilitator is the most important success factor for establishing, carrying out, and to succeed with ethics reflection groups.

Nurses', nursing students', and nursing instructors' perceptions of professional values: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

In order to prove their commitment to the nursing profession, nurses need to base their professional activities on certain acknowledged values. Although a large number of studies have addressed professional values in nursing, only a few studies are available on the identification and comparison of nurses', nursing students', and nursing instructors' understanding of such values.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to compare nurses', nursing students', and nursing instructors' perception of nursing professional values.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In this descriptive-comparative study, data were collected using Weis and Schank's Nurses' Professional Values Scale-Revised. The data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical software (v 22).

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

A total of 299 nurses, 341 nursing students, and 100 nursing instructors from multisite, 20 different wards from 3 university hospitals and associated nursing schools located in the cities of Shiraz, Fasa, and Jahrom in Fars province, participated in 2016.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Institutional Review Board of the researchers' primary university has verified that the study complies with research ethics.

FINDINGS

The total mean scores of the nurses', nursing students', and nursing instructors' perception were found to be 4.23 (0.44), 3.92 (0.50), and 4.34 (0.35), respectively, in the domain of justice-this domain was the subjects' top priority-and 3.40 (0.56), 3.29 (0.49), and 3.55 (0.36), respectively, in the domain of activism-this domain was attached the least importance by the subjects. There were significant differences across the three groups' perception in all of the dimensions of professional values ( p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The three study groups' overall mean scores fall within the range of relatively important or important. Several studies show the same results, but there are still controversies in this regard.

CONCLUSION

There is need for plans to increase nurses' awareness of certain professional duties and improve their professional performance in all areas alongside their care duties.

Inspectors' ethical challenges in health care regulation: a pilot study

There is an increasing body of research on what kind of ethical challenges health care professionals experience regarding the quality of care. In the Netherlands the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate is responsible for monitoring and regulating the quality of health care. No research exists on what kind of ethical challenges inspectors experience during the regulation process itself. In a pilot study we used moral case deliberation as method in order to reflect upon inspectors' ethical challenges. The objective of this paper is to give an overview of the ethical challenges which health care inspectors encounter in their daily work. A thematic qualitative analysis was performed on cases (n = 69) that were collected from health care inspectors in a moral case deliberation pilot study. Eight themes were identified in health care regulation. These can be divided in two categories: work content and internal collaboration. The work of the health care inspectorate is morally loaded and our recommendation is that some form of ethics support is provided for health care inspectors.

Tragedy in moral case deliberation

In healthcare practice, care providers are confronted with tragic situations, in which they are expected to make choices and decisions that can have far-reaching consequences. This article investigates the role of moral case deliberation (MCD) in dealing with tragic situations. It focuses on experiences of care givers involved in the treatment of a pregnant woman with a brain tumour, and their evaluation of a series of MCD meetings in which the dilemmas around care were discussed. The study was qualitative, focusing on the views and experiences of the participants. A case study design is used by conducting semi-structured interviews (N = 10) with health care professionals who both played a role in the treatment of the patient and attended the MCD. The results show that MCD helps people to deal with tragic situations. An important element of MCD in this respect is making explicit the dilemma and the damage, demonstrating that there is no simple solution. MCD prompts participants to formulate and share personal experiences with one another and thus helps to create a shared perception of the situation as tragic. The article concludes that MCD contributes to the sharing of tragic experiences, and fosters mutual interaction during a tragedy. Its value could be increased through explicit reflection on the aspect of contingency that characterises tragedy.

Staff's normative attitudes towards coercion: the role of moral doubt and professional context-a cross-sectional survey study

Background

The use of coercion is morally problematic and requires an ongoing critical reflection. We wondered if not knowing or being uncertain whether coercion is morally right or justified (i.e. experiencing moral doubt) is related to professionals’ normative attitudes regarding the use of coercion.

Methods

This paper describes an explorative statistical analysis based on a cross-sectional survey across seven wards in three Norwegian mental health care institutions.

Results

Descriptive analyses showed that in general the 379 respondents a) were not so sure whether coercion should be seen as offending, b) agreed with the viewpoint that coercion is needed for care and security, and c) slightly disagreed that coercion could be seen as treatment. Staff did not report high rates of moral doubt related to the use of coercion, although most of them agreed there will never be a single answer to the question ‘What is the right thing to do?’.

Bivariate analyses showed that the more they experienced general moral doubt and relative doubt, the more one thought that coercion is offending. Especially psychologists were critical towards coercion. We found significant differences among ward types. Respondents with decisional responsibility for coercion and leadership responsibility saw coercion less as treatment. Frequent experience with coercion was related to seeing coercion more as care and security.

Conclusions

This study showed that experiencing moral doubt is related to some one’s normative attitude towards coercion. Future research could investigate whether moral case deliberation increases professionals’ experience of moral doubt and whether this will evoke more critical thinking and increase staff’s curiosity for alternatives to coercion.

Managing Ethical Difficulties in Healthcare: Communicating in Inter-professional Clinical Ethics Support Sessions

Several studies show that healthcare professionals need to communicate inter-professionally in order to manage ethical difficulties. A model of clinical ethics support (CES) inspired by Habermas' theory of discourse ethics has been developed by our research group. In this version of CES sessions healthcare professionals meet inter-professionally to communicate and reflect on ethical difficulties in a cooperative manner with the aim of reaching communicative agreement or reflective consensus. In order to understand the course of action during CES, the aim of this study was to describe the communication of value conflicts during a series of inter-professional CES sessions. Ten audio- and video-recorded CES sessions were conducted over eight months and were analyzed by using the video analysis tool Transana and qualitative content analysis. The results showed that during the CES sessions the professionals as a group moved through the following five phases: a value conflict expressed as feelings of frustration, sharing disempowerment and helplessness, the revelation of the value conflict, enhancing realistic expectations, seeing opportunities to change the situation instead of obstacles. In the course of CES, the professionals moved from an individual interpretation of the situation to a common, new understanding and then to a change in approach. An open and permissive communication climate meant that the professionals dared to expose themselves, share their feelings, face their own emotions, and eventually arrive at a mutual shared reality. The value conflict was not only revealed but also resolved.

Ethics case reflection sessions: Enablers and barriers

BACKGROUND

In previous research on ethics case reflection (ECR) sessions about specific cases, healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care were clarifying their perspectives on the ethical issue to resolve their main concern of consolidating care. When perspectives were clarified, consequences in the team included 'increased understanding', 'group strengthening' and 'decision grounding'. Additional analysis of the data was needed on conditions that could contribute to the quality of ECR sessions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore conditions for clarifying perspectives during ECR sessions.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Data were collected from observations and interviews and the results emerged from an inductive analysis using grounded theory. Participants and research context: Six observations during ECR sessions and 10 interviews were performed with healthcare professionals working in childhood cancer care and advanced paediatric homecare. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by a regional ethical review board. Participants were informed about their voluntary involvement and that they could withdraw their participation without explaining why.

FINDINGS

Two categories emerged: organizational enablers and barriers and team-related enablers and barriers. Organizational enablers and barriers included the following sub-categories: the timing of the ECR session, the structure during the ECR session and the climate during the ECR session. Sub-categories to team-related enablers and barriers were identified as space for inter-professional perspectives, varying levels of ethical skills and space for the patient's and the family's perspectives.

DISCUSSION

Space for inter-professional perspectives included the dominance of a particular perspective that can result from hierarchical positions. The medical perspective is relevant for understanding the child's situation but should not dominate the ethical reflection.

CONCLUSION

Conditions for ECR sessions have been explored and the new knowledge can be used when training facilitators as well as for those who organize/implement ECR sessions. Awareness of space for different perspectives, including the possible medical advantage over the nursing perspective, could reduce the somewhat unilateral attention and contribute to an inter-professionally shared reflection.

Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation

Background

Moral Case Deliberation is a specific form of bioethics education fostering professionals’ moral competence in order to deal with their moral questions. So far, few studies focus in detail on Moral Case Deliberation methodologies and their didactic principles. The dilemma method is a structured and frequently used method in Moral Case Deliberation that stimulates methodological reflection and reasoning through a systematic dialogue on an ethical issue experienced in practice.

Methods

In this paper we present a case-study of a Moral Case Deliberation with the dilemma method in a health care institution for people with an intellectual disability, describing the theoretical background and the practical application of the dilemma method. The dilemma method focuses on moral experiences of participants concerning a concrete dilemma in practice. By an in-depth description of each of the steps of the deliberation process, we elucidate the educational value and didactics of this specific method.

Results

The didactics and methodical steps of the dilemma method both supported and structured the dialogical reflection process of the participants. The process shows that the participants learned to recognize the moral dimension of the issue at stake and were able to distinguish various perspectives and reasons in a systematic manner. The facilitator played an important role in the learning process of the participants, by assisting them in focusing on and exploring moral aspects of the case.

Discussion

The reflection and learning process, experienced by the participants, shows competency-based characteristics. The role of the facilitator is that of a Socratic teacher with specific knowledge and skills, fostering reflection, inquiry and dialogue.

Conclusion

The specific didactics of the dilemma method is well suited for teaching bioethics in clinical settings. The dilemma method follows an inductive learning approach through a dialogical moral inquiry in which participants develop not only knowledge but also skills, attitude and character. The role of a trained facilitator and a specific view on teaching and practicing ethics are essential when using the dilemma method in teaching health care professionals how to reflect on their own moral issues in practice.

Evaluation of moral case deliberation at the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Moral case deliberation (MCD) as a form of clinical ethics support is usually implemented in health care institutions and educational programs. While there is no previous research on the use of clinical ethics support on the level of health care regulation, employees of regulatory bodies are regularly confronted with moral challenges. This pilot study describes and evaluates the use of MCD at the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ). The objective of this pilot study is to investigate: 1) the current way of dealing with moral issues at the IGZ; 2) experience with and evaluation of MCD as clinical ethics support, and 3) future preferences and (perceived) needs regarding clinical ethics support for dealing with moral questions at the IGZ.

METHODS

We performed an explorative pilot study. The research questions were assessed by means of: 1) interviews with MCD participants during four focus groups; and 2) interviews with six key stakeholders at the IGZ. De qualitative data is illustrated by data from questionnaires on MCD outcomes, perspective taking and MCD evaluation.

RESULTS

Professionals do not always recognize moral issues. Employees report a need for regular and structured moral support in health care regulation. The MCD meetings are evaluated positively. The most important outcomes of MCD are feeling secure and learning from others. Additional support is needed to successfully implement MCD at the Inspectorate.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the respondents perceive moral case deliberation as a useful form of clinical ethics support for dealing with moral questions and issues in health care regulation.

Organisational and individual support for nurses’ ethical competence: A cross-sectional survey

Background:

Nurses’ ethical competence has been identified as a significant factor governing high quality of care. However, nurses lack support in dealing with ethical problems, and therefore managerial support for nurses’ ethical competence is needed.

Research questions:

This study aimed to analyse, from the perspective of nurse and nurse leaders, the level of nurses’ and nurse leaders’ ethical competence, perceptions of support for nurses’ ethical competence at the organisational and individual levels and background factors associated with this support.

Research design:

A descriptive, cross-sectional study design was employed. The Ethical Competence and Ethical Competence Support questionnaires were used to measure the main components. Descriptive statistics and multifactor analysis of variance were used for data analysis.

Participants:

The participants were 298 nurses and 193 nurse leaders working in specialised (48%/52%), primary (43%/36%) or private healthcare (5%/7%) in Finland.

Ethical considerations:

Ethical approval was obtained from the university ethics committee. Results: Nurses estimated their own ethical competence to be at an average level, whereas nurse leaders estimated their own competence at a high level. Nurses’ and nurse leaders’ perceptions of provided support for nurses’ ethical competence was not at a high level. The positive agreement percentage related to organisational support was 44% among nurses and 51% among nurse leaders. The positive agreement percentage related to individual support was lower, that is, 38% among nurses and 61% among nurse leaders. University education had a positive association with some items of individual support.

Conclusion:

Despite the findings that ethical competence was estimated at a high level among nurse leaders, perceptions of support for nurses’ ethical competence were not at a satisfactory level. At the organisational level, nurse leaders need to inform of ethical procedures and practices in orientation; encourage multidisciplinary ethics discussions and collaboration; and support nurses at an individual level to participate in ethics education, multidisciplinary ethics discussions and in solving ethical problems.

Implicit and explicit clinical ethics support in The Netherlands: a mixed methods overview study

Internationally, the prevalence of clinical ethics support (CES) in health care has increased over the years. Previous research on CES focused primarily on ethics committees and ethics consultation, mostly within the context of hospital care. The purpose of this article is to investigate the prevalence of different kinds of CES in various Dutch health care domains, including hospital care, mental health care, elderly care and care for people with an intellectual disability. A mixed methods design was used including two survey questionnaires, sent to all health care institutions, two focus groups and 17 interviews with managing directors or ethics support staff. The findings demonstrate that the presence of ethics committees is relatively high, especially in hospitals. Moral case deliberation (MCD) is available in about half of all Dutch health care institutions, and in two-thirds of the mental health care institutions. Ethics consultants are not very prominent. A distinction is made between explicit CES forms, in which the ethical dimension of care is structurally and professionally addressed and implicit CES forms, in which ethical issues are handled indirectly and in an organic way. Explicit CES forms often go together with implicit forms of CES. MCD might function as a bridge between the two. We conclude that explicit and implicit CES are both relevant for clinical ethics in health care. We recommend research regarding how to combine them in an appropriate way.

Moving It Along: A study of healthcare professionals' experience with ethics consultations

BACKGROUND

Ethics consultation is the traditional way of resolving challenging ethical questions raised about patient care in the United States. Little research has been published on the resolution process used during ethics consultations and on how this experience affects healthcare professionals who participate in them.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this qualitative research was to uncover the basic process that occurs in consultation services through study of the perceptions of healthcare professionals.

DESIGN AND METHOD

The researchers in this study used a constructivist grounded theory approach that represents how one group of professionals experienced ethics consultations in their hospital in the United States.

RESULTS

The results were sufficient to develop an initial theory that has been named after the core concept: Moving It Along. Three process stages emerged from data interpretation: moral questioning, seeing the big picture, and coming together. It is hoped that this initial work stimulates additional research in describing and understanding the complex social process that occurs for healthcare professionals as they address the difficult moral issues that arise in clinical practice.

Ethical concerns and dilemmas of Finnish and Dutch health professionals

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals encounter ethical dilemmas and concerns in their practice. More research is needed to understand these ethical problems and to know how to educate professionals to respond to them.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

To describe ethical dilemmas and concerns at work from the perspectives of Finnish and Dutch healthcare professionals studying at the master's level.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Exploratory, qualitative study that used the text of student online discussions of ethical dilemmas at work as data.

METHOD

Participants' online discussions were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 49 students at master's level enrolled in professional ethics courses at universities in Finland and the Netherlands.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Permission for conducting the study was granted from both universities of applied sciences. All students provided their informed consent for the use of their assignments as research data.

FINDINGS

Participants described 51 problematic work situations. Among these, 16 were found to be ethical dilemmas, and the remaining were work issues with an ethical concern and did not meet criteria of a dilemma. The most common problems resulted from concerns about quality care, safety of healthcare professionals, patients' rights, and working with too few staff and inadequate resources.

DISCUSSION

The results indicated that participants were concerned about providing quality of care and raised numerous questions about how to provide it in challenging situations. The results show that it was difficult for students to differentiate ethical dilemmas from other ethical work concerns.

CONCLUSION

Online discussions among healthcare providers give them an opportunity to relate ethical principles to real ethical dilemmas and problems in their work as well as to critically analyze ethical issues. We found that discussions with descriptions of ethical dilemmas and concerns by health professionals provide important information and recommendations not only for education and practice but also for health policy.

Dealing with ethical challenges: a focus group study with professionals in mental health care

Background

Little is known about how health care professionals deal with ethical challenges in mental health care, especially when not making use of a formal ethics support service. Understanding this is important in order to be able to support the professionals, to improve the quality of care, and to know in which way future ethics support services might be helpful.

Methods

Within a project on ethics, coercion and psychiatry, we executed a focus group interview study at seven departments with 65 health care professionals and managers. We performed a systematic and open qualitative analysis focusing on the question: ‘How do health care professionals deal with ethical challenges?’ We deliberately did not present a fixed definition or theory of ethical challenge.

Results

We categorized relevant topics into three subthemes: 1) Identification and presence of ethical challenges; 2) What do the participants actually do when dealing with an ethical challenge?; and 3) The significance of facing ethical challenges.

Results varied from dealing with ethical challenges every day and appreciating it as a positive part of working in mental health care, to experiencing ethical challenges as paralyzing burdens that cause a lot of stress and hinder constructive team cooperation. Some participants reported that they do not have the time and that they lack a specific methodology. Quite often, informal and retrospective ad-hoc meetings in small teams were organized. Participants struggled with what makes a challenge an ethical challenge and whether it differs from a professional challenge. When dealing with ethical challenges, a number of participants experienced difficulties handling disagreement in a constructive way. Furthermore, some participants plead for more attention for underlying intentions and justifications of treatment decisions.

Conclusions

The interviewed health care professionals dealt with ethical challenges in many different ways, often in an informal, implicit and reactive manner. This study revealed nine different categories of what health care professionals implicitly or explicitly conceive as ‘ethical challenges’. Future research should focus on how ethics support services, such as ethics reflection groups or moral case deliberation, can be of help with respect to dealing with ethical challenges and value disagreements in a constructive way.

Managers' views on and experiences with moral case deliberation in nursing teams

AIMS

Providing management insights regarding moral case deliberation (MCD) from the experiential perspective of nursing managers.

BACKGROUND

MCD concerns systematic group-wise reflection on ethical issues. Attention to implementing MCD in health care is increasing, and managers' experiences regarding facilitating MCD's implementation have not yet been studied.

METHOD

As part of an empirical qualitative study on implementing MCD in mental health care, a responsive evaluation design was used. Using former research findings (iterative procedures), a managers' focus group was organised.

RESULTS

Managers appreciated MCD, fostering nurses' empowerment and critical reflection - according to managers, professional core competences. Managers found MCD a challenging intervention, resulting in dilemmas due to MCD's confidential and egalitarian nature. Managers value MCD's process-related outcomes, yet these are difficult to control/regulate.

CONCLUSIONS

MCD urges managers to reflect on their role and (hierarchical) position both within MCD and in the nursing team.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

MCD is in line with transformative and participatory management, fostering dialogical interaction between management and nursing team.

Evaluation and perceived results of moral case deliberation

Background:

Moral case deliberation is increasingly becoming part of various Dutch healthcare organizations. Although some evaluation studies of moral case deliberation have been carried out, research into the results of moral case deliberation within aged care is scarce.

Research questions:

How did participants evaluate moral case deliberation? What has moral case deliberation brought to them? What has moral case deliberation contributed to care practice? Should moral case deliberation be further implemented and, if so, how?

Research design:

Quantitative analysis of a questionnaire study among participants of moral case deliberation, both caregivers and team leaders. Qualitative analysis of written answers to open questions, interview study and focus group meetings among caregivers and team leaders.

Participants and research context:

Caregivers and team leaders in a large organization for aged care in the Netherlands. A total of 61 moral case deliberation sessions, carried out on 16 care locations belonging to the organization, were evaluated and perceived results were assessed.

Ethical considerations:

Participants gave informed consent and anonymity was guaranteed. In the Netherlands, the law does not prescribe independent ethical review by an Institutional Review Board for this kind of research among healthcare professionals.

Findings:

Moral case deliberation was evaluated positively by the participants. Content and atmosphere of moral case deliberation received high scores, while organizational issues regarding the moral case deliberation sessions scored lower and merit further attention. Respondents indicated that moral case deliberation has the potential to contribute to care practice as relationships among team members improve, more openness is experienced and more understanding for different perspectives is fostered. If moral case deliberation is to be successfully implemented, top-down approaches should go hand in hand with bottom-up approaches.

Conclusion:

The relevance of moral case deliberation for care practice received wide acknowledgement from the respondents. It can contribute to the team’s cohesion as mutual understanding for one another’s views is fostered. If implemented well, moral case deliberation has the potential to improve care, according to the respondents.

Ethics rounds: An appreciated form of ethics support

BACKGROUND

Ethics rounds are one way to support healthcare personnel in handling ethically difficult situations. A previous study in the present project showed that ethics rounds did not result in significant changes in perceptions of how ethical issues were handled, that is, in the ethical climate. However, there was anecdotal evidence that the ethics rounds were viewed as a positive experience and that they stimulated ethical reflection.

AIM

The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of how the ethics rounds were experienced and why the intervention in the form of ethics rounds did not succeed in improving the ethical climate for the staff.

RESEARCH DESIGN

An exploratory and descriptive design with a qualitative approach was adopted, using individual interviews.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

A total of 11 healthcare personnel, working in two different psychiatry outpatient clinics and with experience of participating in ethics rounds, were interviewed.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The study was based on informed consent and was approved by one of the Swedish Regional Ethical Review Boards.

FINDINGS

The participants were generally positive about the ethics rounds. They had experienced changes by participating in the ethics rounds in the form of being able to see things from different perspectives as well as by gaining insight into ethical issues. However, these changes had not affected daily work.

DISCUSSION

A crucial question is whether or not increased reflection ability among the participants is a good enough outcome of ethics rounds and whether this result could have been measured in patient-related outcomes. Ethics rounds might foster cooperation among the staff and this, in turn, could influence patient care.

CONCLUSION

By listening to others during ethics rounds, a person can learn to see things from a new angle. Participation in ethics rounds can also lead to better insight concerning ethical issues.

Ethical challenges in everyday work with adults with learning disabilities

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers caring for learning-disabled individuals in institutions face challenges of what is right or wrong in their daily work. Serving this group, it is of utmost importance for the healthcare staff to raise awareness and to understand how ethical values are at stake.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What ethical challenges are discussed among healthcare providers working with adults with learning disabilities?

RESEARCH DESIGN

The study had a qualitative and investigative design.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT

The study was conducted in a community institution for adults with learning disabilities. Participants were healthcare providers joining regular focused group discussions. Two groups participated and each group consisted of six participants. The conversations were taped and transcribed.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The study was reported to Norwegian Social Science Data Services and was approved by the regional ethics committee.

FINDINGS

Findings are presented in four themes: (a) feeling squeezed between conflicting actions, (b) being the client's spokesman, (c) searching shared responsibility, and (d) expecting immediate and fixed solutions. The healthcare providers wanted to be the clients' advocates. They felt obliged to speak up for the clients, however, seeking for someone with whom to share the heavily experienced responsibility. Data likewise revealed that the group discussions created expectations among the healthcare providers; they expected smart and final solutions to the problems they discussed.

DISCUSSION

The discussion focuses on everyday ethical challenges, the meaning of being in-between and share responsibility, and the meaning of ethical sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

Ethical challenges can be demanding for the staff; they might feel squeezed in-between contradictory attitudes or feel alone in decision-making. Frequent conversations about ethical challenges do not solve the ethical problems here-and-now, but they do visualize them. This also visualizes the staff's need for support.

Evaluating clinical ethics support in mental healthcare: a systematic literature review

A systematic literature review on evaluation of clinical ethics support services in mental healthcare is presented and discussed. The focus was on (a) forms of clinical ethics support services, (b) evaluation of clinical ethics support services, (c) contexts and participants and (d) results. Five studies were included. The ethics support activities described were moral case deliberations and ethics rounds. Different qualitative and quantitative research methods were utilized. The results show that (a) participants felt that they gained an increased insight into moral issues through systematic reflection; (b) there was improved cooperation among multidisciplinary team members; (c) it was uncertain whether clinical ethics support services led to better patient care; (d) the issue of patient and client participation is complex; and (e) the implementation process is challenging. Clinical ethics support services have mainly been studied through the experiences of the participating facilitators and healthcare professionals. Hence, there is limited knowledge of whether and how various types of clinical ethics support services influence the quality of care and how patients and relatives may evaluate clinical ethics support services. Based on the six excluded 'grey zone articles', in which there was an implicit focus on ethics reflection, other ways of working with ethical reflection in practice are discussed. Implementing and evaluating clinical ethics support services as approaches to clinical ethics support that are more integrated into the development of good practice are in focus. In order to meet some of the shortcomings of the field of clinical ethics support services, a research project that aims to strengthen ethics support in the mental health services, including patients' and caregivers' views on ethical challenges, is presented.