Empirical assessments of clinical ethics services: implications for clinical ethics committees

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.

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.

Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols

BACKGROUND

Clinical ethics case consultations (CECCs) provide a structured approach in situations of ethical uncertainty or conflicts. There have been increasing calls in recent years to assess the quality of CECCs by means of empirical research. This study provides detailed data of a descriptive quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a CECC service in a department of cardiology and intensive care at a German university hospital.

METHODS

Semi-structured document analysis of CECCs was conducted in the period of November 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. All documents were analysed by two researchers independently.

RESULTS

Twenty-four CECCs were requested within the study period, of which most (n = 22; 92%) had been initiated by physicians of the department. The patients were an average of 79 years old (R: 43-96), and 14 (58%) patients were female. The median length of stay prior to request was 12.5 days (R: 1-65 days). The most frequent diagnoses (several diagnoses possible) were cardiology-related (n = 29), followed by sepsis (n = 11) and cancer (n = 6). Twenty patients lacked decisional capacity. The main reason for a CECC request was uncertainty about the balancing of potential benefit and harm related to the medically indicated treatment (n = 18). Further reasons included differing views regarding the best individual treatment option between health professionals and patients (n = 3) or between different team members (n = 3). Consensus between participants could be reached in 18 (75%) consultations. The implementation of a disease specific treatment intervention was recommended in five cases. Palliative care and limitation of further disease specific interventions was recommended in 12 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first in-depth evaluation of a CECC service set up for an academic department of cardiology and intensive medical care. Patient characteristics and the issues deliberated during CECC provide a starting point for the development and testing of more tailored clinical ethics support services and research on CECC outcomes.

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

Background

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

Aim

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

Subjects and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons.

METHODS

Guided by Levac et al's (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings.

RESULTS

Nine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified - the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations.

CONCLUSION

This review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy. To advance a contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive, program specific assessment tool to assess CECons, clear structural and competency guidelines must be established in the curation of CECons programs, to evaluate their true efficacy and maintain clinical, legal and ethical standards.

Ethical case interventions for adult patients

BACKGROUND

Decisions in clinical medicine can be associated with ethical challenges. Ethical case interventions (e.g. ethics committee, moral case deliberation) identify and analyse ethical conflicts which occur within the context of care for patients. Ethical case interventions involve ethical experts, different health professionals as well as the patient and his/her family. The aim is to support decision-making in clinical practice. This systematic review gathered and critically appraised the available evidence of controlled studies on the effectiveness of ethical case interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether ethical case interventions result in reduced decisional conflict or moral distress of those affected by an ethical conflict in clinical practice; improved patient involvement in decision-making and a higher quality of life in adult patients. To determine the most effective models of ethical case interventions and to analyse the use and appropriateness of the outcomes in experimental studies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for primary studies to September 2018: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched CDSR and DARE for related reviews. Furthermore, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and conducted a cited reference search for all included studies in ISI WEB of Science. We also searched the references of the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies which compared ethical case interventions with usual care or an active control in any language. The included population were adult patients. However, studies with mixed populations consisting of adults and children were included, if a subgroup or sensitivity analysis (or both) was performed for the adult population.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care review group. We used meta-analysis based on a random-effects model for treatment costs and structured analysis for the remaining outcomes, because these were heterogeneously reported. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised trials published in six articles. The publication dates ranged from 2000 to 2014. Three studies were conducted in the USA, and one study in Taiwan. All studies were conducted on intensive care units and included 1165 patients. We judged the included studies to be of moderate or high risk of bias. It was not possible to compare different models of the intervention regarding effectiveness due to the diverse character of the interventions and the small number of studies. Included studies did not directly measure the main outcomes. All studies received public funding and one received additional funding from private sources.We identified two models of ethical case interventions: proactive and request-based ethics consultation. Three studies evaluated proactive ethics consultation (n = 1103) of which one study reported findings on one key outcome criterion. The studies did not report data on decisional conflict, moral distress of participants of ethical case interventions, patient involvement in decision-making, quality of life or ethical competency for proactive ethics consultation. One study assessed satisfaction with care on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = lowest rating, 5 = highest rating). The healthcare providers (nurses and physicians, n = 365) scored a value of 4 or 5 for 81.4% in the control group and 86.1% in the intervention group (P > 0.05). The patients or their surrogates (n = 275) scored a value of 4 or 5 for 83.6% in the control group and for 74.8% in the intervention group (P > 0.05). It was uncertain whether proactive ethics consultation led to high satisfaction with care, because the certainty of evidence was very low.One study evaluated request-based ethics consultation (n = 62). The study indirectly measured decisional conflict by assessing consensus regarding patient care. The risk (increase in consensus, reduction in decisional conflict) increased by 80% as a result of the intervention. The risk ratio was 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.46; P < 0.01). It was uncertain whether request-based ethics consultation reduced decisional conflict, because the certainty of evidence was very low. The study did not report data on moral distress of participants of ethical case interventions, patient involvement in decision-making, quality of life, or ethical competency or satisfaction with care for request-based ethics consultation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to determine the effectiveness of ethical case interventions with certainty due to the low certainty of the evidence of included studies in this review. The effectiveness of ethical case interventions should be investigated in light of the outcomes reported in this systematic review. In addition, there is need for further research to identify and measure outcomes which reflect the goals of different types of ethical case intervention.

Do we understand the intervention? What complex intervention research can teach us for the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS)

BACKGROUND

Evaluating clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been hailed as important research task. At the same time, there is considerable debate about how to evaluate CESS appropriately. The criticism, which has been aired, refers to normative as well as empirical aspects of evaluating CESS.

MAIN BODY

In this paper, we argue that a first necessary step for progress is to better understand the intervention(s) in CESS. Tools of complex intervention research methodology may provide relevant means in this respect. In a first step, we introduce principles of "complex intervention research" and show how CESS fulfil the criteria of "complex interventions". In a second step, we develop a generic "conceptual framework" for "ethics consultation on request" as standard for many forms of ethics consultation in clinical ethics practice. We apply this conceptual framework to the model of "bioethics mediation" to make explicit the specific structural and procedural elements of this form of ethics consultation on request. In a final step we conduct a comparative analysis of two different types of CESS, which have been subject to evaluation research: "proactive ethics consultation" and "moral case deliberation" and discuss implications for evaluating both types of CESS.

CONCLUSION

To make explicit different premises of implemented CESS interventions by means of conceptual frameworks can inform the search for sound empirical evaluation of CESS. In addition, such work provides a starting point for further reflection about what it means to offer "good" CESS.

Developing clinical ethics support for an Australian Health Service: A survey of clinician's experiences and views

BACKGROUND

International developments suggest that providing clinical ethics services to help clinicians negotiate ethical issues that arise in clinical practice is beneficial and reflects best practice in promoting high ethical standards and patient-centered care. The aim of this study was to explore the needs and experiences of clinical staff members to inform the development of future clinical ethics support.

METHODS

Health professionals at a large regional health service completed an online survey containing questions about the frequency of ethical and legal issues encountered in clinical practice, the type of situations that gave rise to the ethical and/or legal uncertainty or concern, how clinicians currently address these issues, and what support would be welcome.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 369 staff members, including 61% with more than 10 years in the profession and 51% in nursing/midwifery. Two-thirds (66%) indicated they often considered ethical implications of their clinical decisions, and half (49%) often considered the legal implications. More than half (58%) were often/occasionally concerned about the ethically right thing to do. Patient requests for borderline treatment (47%), staff disagreements about patient care (48%), and patients declining recommended treatment (54%) were the most frequent reasons given for ethical or legal uncertainty. Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated that the way their department addressed ethical issues could be improved and 85% agreed that there is a need for more discussion on ethical issues. The majority (82%) of respondents had encountered ethically challenging clinical situations where additional support would have helped. Common approaches to issues were discussion with colleagues/supervisor (91.1%), discussion at handover/group forums (50.8%), and consultation with guidelines/protocols (60.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of clinical staff members surveyed have encountered ethically/legally challenging cases daily for which they have often sought additional advice. This study indicates that many clinical staff members would welcome some form of additional clinical ethics support including advice and education.

Managing ethical issues in patient care and the need for clinical ethics support

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the range, frequency and management of ethical issues encountered by clinicians working in hospitals in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of a convenience sample of 104 medical, nursing and allied health professionals in two NSW hospitals.

RESULTS

Some respondents did not provide data for some questions, therefore the denominator is less than 105 for some items. Sixty-two (62/104; 60%) respondents reported occasionally to often having ethical concerns. Forty-six (46/105; 44%) reported often to occasionally having legal concerns. The three most common responses to concerns were: talking to colleagues (96/105; 91%); raising the issue in a group forum (68/105; 65%); and consulting a relevant guideline (64/105; 61%). Most respondents were highly (65/99; 66%) or moderately (33/99; 33%) satisfied with the ethical environment of the hospital. Twenty-two (22/98; 22%) were highly satisfied with the ethical environment of their department and 74 (74/98; 76%) were moderately satisfied. Most (72/105; 69%) respondents indicated that additional support in dealing with ethical issues would be helpful.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians reported frequently experiencing ethical and legal uncertainty and concern. They usually managed this by talking with colleagues. Although this approach was considered adequate, and the ethics of their hospital was reported to be satisfactory, most respondents indicated that additional assistance with ethical and legal concerns would be helpful. Clinical ethics support should be a priority of public hospitals in NSW and elsewhere in Australia.

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.

Evaluating parents' perspectives of pediatric ethics consultation

Ethics consultation is a familiar concept to clinicians, and there are site-specific guidelines detailing procedures for both obtaining and performing these consults. Evaluative data about clinician experiences with ethics consults are becoming more extensive but information about family experiences, especially parent perceptions, of the same is lacking. Without a better understanding of those family experiences, an evidence base for ethics consultations cannot be built. This manuscript describes the reasons for obtaining this necessary information, details prior research designed to obtain knowledge about family experiences with pediatric ethics consultations, and suggests mechanisms for acquiring it.

The impact of an ethics training programme on the success of clinical ethics services

The interdisciplinary Hannover Qualification Programme on ethics consultation has trained hospital staff to operate clinical ethics services in their respective hospitals since 2003. To evaluate Hannover Qualification Programme, all former participants were contacted using an online questionnaire including four domains: status quo before attending Hannover Qualification Programme, present status, impact of Hannover Qualification Programme, future challenges. Research objectives were the long-term satisfaction with Hannover Qualification Programme and its impact on clinical ethics services. The response rate was 45% (167/369). Hannover Qualification Programme was evaluated as helpful and the responders were capable of applying their acquired skills. Most participants could contribute to the implementation of clinical ethics services. They were satisfied with Hannover Qualification Programme and with the degree of changes in their hospitals. In conclusion, clinical ethics education had long-term effects on trainees and on their respective hospitals. Problems were mentioned rather in the field of utilisation than with implementation or quality of clinical ethics services.

Evaluation of clinical ethics support services and its normativity

Evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) has attracted considerable interest in recent decades. However, few evaluation studies are explicit about normative presuppositions which underlie the goals and the research design of CESS evaluation. In this paper, we provide an account of normative premises of different approaches to CESS evaluation and argue that normativity should be a focus of considerations when designing and conducting evaluation research of CESS. In a first step, we present three different approaches to CESS evaluation from published literature. Next to a brief sketch of the well-established approaches of 'descriptive evaluation' and 'evaluation of outcomes', we will give a more detailed description of a third approach to evaluation-'reconstructing quality norms of CESS'-which is explicit about the normative presuppositions of its research (design). In the subsequent section, we will analyse the normative premises of each of the three approaches to CESS evaluation. We will conclude with a brief argument for more sensitivity towards the normativity of CESS and its evaluation research.

Inclusive consultation: a hermeneutical approach to ethical deliberation in the clinical setting

The problem of ethical consultations in the clinical setting should be reasonable, but it cannot be reduced to reason and philosophical theory alone. I will argue that emotions are constitutively and discursively relevant features of the evaluative experience of persons. Ethical consultations should include emotions. Emotions like shame and guilt are complex and learned reactions of persons, which form one basis of ethical reflection. I argue that ethical consultation can rely neither on a strict theory or method nor on a philosophical theory that is external to the situational triggers of consultations in the clinical setting. Emotions are one essential trigger of the need for ethical consultations. I will show that methodologically consultation depends on understanding the evaluative experiences of persons who cooperate in the clinical setting. Moreover, such evaluative experiences includes emotive reactions as well as reason. My conclusion is that ethical consultation in the clinical setting needs a conceptual understanding of epistemic, justificatory and methodological inclusiveness. This circumstance can be summarized: ethical consultations need the ongoing development of a moral hermeneutics of clinical consultation.

Is the discussion of patient cases in clinical ethics-committees useful?

BACKGROUND

All health enterprises in Norway today have at least one clinical ethics committee (CEC). One of the aims is to give advice and to counsel the hospital staff on ethical issues. As part of the quality assurance of this work, we wanted to find out if clinicians have benefited from these committees in individual cases.

MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

The local committees were requested to distribute a questionnaire to all clinicians who had submitted a case to the committee during the previous 18 months. The survey was anonymous. Out of the 86 questionnaires that were distributed, 43 (50%) were returned to the Centre for Medical Ethics.

RESULTS

The majority of clinicians had a number of reasons for contacting the committee. The most usual reason was the desire to have a broad consultation on a case (70%), which was regarded as useful. The most common issue discussed was limiting the treatment of a seriously ill patient (56%), the will/wishes of the next-of-kin (40%) and patient autonomy (37%). The committee gave advice in 50% of the cases. Thirty-eight percent of the consultations resulted in practical consequences, including the discontinuation of treatment in six cases.

INTERPRETATION

Because of the low response percentage, the results must be interpreted with caution. The work of the committees is generally evaluated as useful, and the consultations can have practical consequences. However, it is challenging to make this work better known among clinicians and to conduct quality assurance.

Involving patients and relatives in a Norwegian clinical ethics committee: what have we learned?

To date, few Norwegian clinical ethics committees (CECs) have included patients or next of kin in case discussions. In 2008, Rikshospitalet's (The National Hospital‘s) CEC began to routinely invite patients and relatives into case discussions. In this paper, we describe seven cases discussed by this committee in 2008. Six involved life and death decision-making in collaboration with the next of kin, while one related case did not include relatives. In our opinion, representing the patient's perspective was advantageous to the discussion itself, to the conclusion made and to the next of kin's acceptance of the resolution. We believe that if the patient had been represented in the last case, the outcome might have been different. We conclude that successful patient involvement will rely on well-structured case discussions, an open atmosphere and good preparation and follow-up.