Clinical ethics support services in the UK: an investigation of the current provision of ethics support to health professionals in the UK

Ethical Issues Referred to Clinical Ethics Support at a University Hospital in Korea: Three-Year Experience After Enforcement of Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act

BACKGROUND

Clinical ethics support is a form of preventive ethics aimed at mediating ethics-related conflicts and managing ethical issues arising in the healthcare setting. However, limited evidence exists regarding the specific ethical issues in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore the diverse ethical issues of cases referred to clinical ethics support after the new legislation on hospice palliative care and end-of-life decision-making was implemented in Korea in 2018.

METHODS

A retrospective study of cases referred to clinical ethics support at a university hospital in Korea from February 2018 to February 2021 was conducted. The ethical issues at the time of referral were analyzed via qualitative content analysis of the ethics consultation-related documents.

RESULTS

A total of 60 cases of 57 patients were included in the study, of whom 52.6% were men and 56.1% were older than 60 years of age. The majority of cases (80%) comprised patients from the intensive care unit. One-third of the patients were judged as being at the end-of-life stage. The most frequent ethical categories were identified as goals of care/treatment (78.3%), decision-making (75%), relationship (41.7%), and end-of-life issues (31.7%). More specifically, best interests (71.7%), benefits and burdens/harms (61.7%), refusal (53.3%), and surrogate decision-making (33.3%), followed by withholding or withdrawal (28.3%) were the most frequent ethical issues reported, which became diversified by year. In addition, the ethical issues appeared to differ by age group and judgment of the end-of-life stage.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study expand the current understanding of the diverse ethical issues including decision-making and goals of care/treatment that have been referred to clinical ethics support since the enforcement of the new legislation in Korea. This study suggests a need for further research on the longitudinal exploration of ethical issues and implementation of clinical ethics support in multiple healthcare centers.

Evaluating interventions to improve ethical decision making in clinical practice: a review of the literature and reflections on the challenges posed

Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing acknowledgement of the importance of recognising the ethical dimension of clinical decision-making. Medical professional regulatory authorities in some countries now include ethical knowledge and practice in their required competencies for undergraduate and post graduate medical training. Educational interventions and clinical ethics support services have been developed to support and improve ethical decision making in clinical practice, but research evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions has been limited. We undertook a systematic review of the published literature on measures or models of evaluation used to assess the impact of interventions to improve ethical decision making in clinical care. We identified a range of measures to evaluate educational interventions, and one tool used to evaluate a clinical ethics support intervention. Most measures did not evaluate the key impact of interest, that is the quality of ethical decision making in real-world clinical practice. We describe the results of our review and reflect on the challenges of assessing ethical decision making in clinical practice that face both developers of educational and support interventions and the regulatory organisations that set and assess competency standards.

Clinical ethics support services in paediatric practice: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review on structures, interventions and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Clinical ethics support services (CESS) have been developing worldwide with growing interest in evaluating their quality. Paediatric-specific CESSs (p-CESS) have received little attention, and evidence from adult services might not be generalisable. Evidence on service models and practices is crucial to inform further research and debate on quality evaluation and minimum standards for p-CESSs. We aim to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise evidence for p-CESS structures, processes and outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a mixed-studies systematic review including peer-reviewed empirical studies published in English or Spanish language providing data on the evaluation and/or impact on any aspect of p-CESS. We will search seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, Web of Science and CINHAL, without filters applied. Search terms will be related to "clinical ethics support" AND "paediatrics" AND "structure/process/outcome". Reference and citation list of included studies will be handsearched. A 10% random sample of retrieved titles/abstracts and all full texts will be independently dual-screened. We will conduct narrative and thematic synthesis for quantitative and qualitative data, respectively, following sequential explanatory synthesis guided by Donabedian's framework of structure, process and outcomes. Quality will be assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). The review will be reported using the adapted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence template. Stakeholders will be involved twice in the review process; prior to data extraction and synthesis and after preliminary results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As a systematic review of published data, no ethical approval is necessary. Results will be published in a relevant academic peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021280978.

Clinical ethics support services during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for clinical ethics support provision to ensure as far as possible fair decision making and to address healthcare workers' moral distress.

PURPOSE

To describe the availability, characteristics and role of clinical ethics support services (CESSs) in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

A descriptive cross-sectional online survey was developed by the research team. The survey included questions on CESSs characteristics (model, types of support, guidance development, membership, parent and patient involvement) and changes in response to the pandemic. Invitations to participate were widely circulated via National Health Service institutional emails and relevant clinical ethics groups known to the research team.

RESULTS

Between October 2020 and June 2021, a total of 53 responses were received. In response to the pandemic, new CESSs were established, and existing provision changed. Most took the form of clinical ethics committees, groups and advisory boards, which varied in size and membership and the body of clinicians and patient populations they served. Some services provided moral distress support and educational provision for clinical staff. During the pandemic, services became more responsive to clinicians' requests for ethics support and advice. More than half of respondents developed local guidance and around three quarters formed links with regional or other local services. Patient and/or family members' involvement in ethics discussions is infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic has resulted in an expansion in the number of CESSs. Though some may disband as the pandemic eases, the reliance on CESSs during the pandemic demonstrates the need for additional research to better understand the effectiveness of their various forms, connections, guidance, services and modes of working and for better support to enhance consistency, transparency, communication with patients and availability to clinical staff.

Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review

Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs), as distinct from Research Ethics Committees, were originally established with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in managing controversial clinical ethical issues. However, it is still unclear whether they manage to accomplish this task and what is their impact on clinical practice. This systematic review aims to collect available assessments of CECs' performance as reported in literature, in order to evaluate CECs' effectiveness. We retrieved all literature published up to November 2019 in six databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Philosopher's Index, Embase and Web of Science), following PRISMA guidelines. We included only articles specifically addressing CECs and providing any form of CECs performance assessment. Twenty-nine articles were included. Ethics consultation was the most evaluated of CECs' functions. We did not find standardized tools for measuring CECs' efficacy, but 33% of studies considered "user satisfaction" as an indicator, with 94% of them reporting an average positive perception of CECs' impact. Changes in patient treatment and a decrease of moral distress in health personnel were reported as additional outcomes of ethics consultation. The highly diverse ways by which CECs carry out their activities make CECs' evaluation difficult. The adoption of shared criteria would be desirable to provide a reliable answer to the question about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, in general both users and providers consider CECs as helpful, relevant to their work, able to improve the quality of care. Their main function is ethics consultation, while less attention seems to be devoted to bioethics education and policy formation.

Making the (Business) Case for Clinical Ethics Support in the UK

This paper provides a series of reflections on making the case to senior leaders for the introduction of clinical ethics support services within a UK hospital Trust at a time when clinical ethics committees are dwindling in the UK. The paper provides key considerations for those building a (business) case for clinical ethics support within hospitals by drawing upon published academic literature, and key reports from governmental and professional bodies. We also include extracts from documents relating to, and annual reports of, existing clinical ethics support within UK hospitals, as well as extracts from our own proposal submitted to the Trust Board. We aim for this paper to support other ethicists and/or health care staff contemplating introducing clinical ethics support into hospitals, to facilitate the process of making the case for clinical ethics support, and to contribute to the key debates in the literature around clinical ethics support. We conclude that there is a real need for investment in clinical ethics in the UK in order to build the evidence base required to support the wider introduction of clinical ethics support into UK hospitals. Furthermore, our perceptions of the purpose of, and perceived needs met through, clinical ethics support needs to shift to one of hospitals investing in their staff. Finally, we raise concerns over the optional nature of clinical ethics support available to practitioners within UK hospitals.

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.

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.

Jonsen's Four Topics Approach as a Framework for Clinical Ethics Consultation

This was an in-depth qualitative study that looked at the reasons patients were referred to the Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) of an acute hospital in Singapore and explore how the CEC approached cases referred. Jonsen's four topics approach was applied in the deliberative process for all cases. A comprehensive review of the case records of 28 patients referred consecutively to the CEC from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014 was conducted. Data and information was collated from the referral forms, patient medical records, and emails communicated among CEC members. A deductive approach to thematic analysis based on Jonsen's four topics approach was used to analyze the documents. Majority of the patients were male (94%), Chinese (76%), and above 65 years of age (41%). Ethical dilemmas surfaced due to differences in opinion regarding withholding of aggressive management (53%), withdrawing treatment (35%), and ascertaining patient's autonomy (12%). In most cases, the patients' preference on end-of-life care was unknown (82%). The main reasons for referral to the CEC were conflicts in clinical management and uncertainty about the decision-making capacity of patients. The CEC members tended to emphasize on "patient preference" more than the other quadrants in the four topics approach as they worked through each case. The Jonsen's four topics approach lays the groundwork to frame ethical dilemmas that can be easily applied in the clinical setting and is a useful tool for the CEC's teaching and discussion. Nonetheless, the approach only organizes ethical dilemmas and requires clinicians to apply own judgment in weighing ethical principles. Further studies can look into adapting the four topics approach to suit the local practices and context.

Clinical Ethics Support for Healthcare Personnel: An Integrative Literature Review

This study describes which clinical ethics approaches are available to support healthcare personnel in clinical practice in terms of their construction, functions and goals. Healthcare personnel frequently face ethically difficult situations in the course of their work and these issues cover a wide range of areas from prenatal care to end-of-life care. Although various forms of clinical ethics support have been developed, to our knowledge there is a lack of review studies describing which ethics support approaches are available, how they are constructed and their goals in supporting healthcare personnel in clinical practice. This study engages in an integrative literature review. We searched for peer-reviewed academic articles written in English between 2000 and 2016 using specific Mesh terms and manual keywords in CINAHL, MEDLINE and Psych INFO databases. In total, 54 articles worldwide described clinical ethics support approaches that include clinical ethics consultation, clinical ethics committees, moral case deliberation, ethics rounds, ethics discussion groups, and ethics reflection groups. Clinical ethics consultation and clinical ethics committees have various roles and functions in different countries. They can provide healthcare personnel with advice and recommendations regarding the best course of action. Moral case deliberation, ethics rounds, ethics discussion groups and ethics reflection groups support the idea that group reflection increases insight into ethical issues. Clinical ethics support in the form of a "bottom-up" perspective might give healthcare personnel opportunities to think and reflect more than a "top-down" perspective. A "bottom-up" approach leaves the healthcare personnel with the moral responsibility for their choice of action in clinical practice, while a "top-down" approach risks removing such moral responsibility.

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.

How to introduce medical ethics at the bedside - Factors influencing the implementation of an ethical decision-making model

Background

As the implementation of new approaches and procedures of medical ethics is as complex and resource-consuming as in other fields, strategies and activities must be carefully planned to use the available means and funds responsibly. Which facilitators and barriers influence the implementation of a medical ethics decision-making model in daily routine? Up to now, there has been little examination of these factors in this field.

Methods

A medical ethics decision-making model called METAP was introduced on three intensive care units and two geriatric wards. An evaluation study was performed from 7 months after deployment of the project until two and a half years. Quantitative and qualitative methods including a questionnaire, semi-structured face-to-face and group-interviews were used.

Results

Sixty-three participants from different professional groups took part in 33 face-to-face and 9 group interviews, and 122 questionnaires could be analysed. The facilitating factors most frequently mentioned were: acceptance and presence of the model, support given by the medical and nursing management, an existing or developing (explicit) ethics culture, perception of a need for a medical ethics decision-making model, and engaged staff members. Lack of presence and acceptance, insufficient time resources and staff, poor inter-professional collaboration, absence of ethical competence, and not recognizing ethical problems were identified as inhibiting the implementation of the METAP model. However, the results of the questionnaire as well as of explicit inquiry showed that the respondents stated to have had enough time and staff available to use METAP if necessary.

Conclusions

Facilitators and barriers of the implementation of a medical ethics decision-making model are quite similar to that of medical guidelines. The planning for implementing an ethics model or guideline can, therefore, benefit from the extensive literature and experience concerning the implementation of medical guidelines. Lack of time and staff can be overcome when people are convinced that the benefits justify the effort.

Paediatric clinical ethics in Australia and New Zealand: a survey

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the presence, purpose, function, governance and funding of clinical ethics services (CES) in tertiary paediatric hospitals in Australia and New Zealand.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A descriptive, quantitative survey was conducted across eight paediatric hospitals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Responses from survey questions on the presence, purpose, function, governance and funding of the CES.

RESULTS

Seven of eight tertiary paediatric hospitals identified access to CES. Regarding purpose and function, all CES provided clinical case consultation, six of seven provided education and training, six of seven assisted with organisational policy and guideline development and four of seven undertook original ethics research. There was wide variation in how case consultations were conducted, reported and documented. With respect to governance and funding, all CES reported to their hospital executive and only one CES reported having a dedicated, although small, budget.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in the process of case consultation and CES policy content exists across the organisations studied. There is consistency with the broader values that underpin CES such as their multidisciplinary nature and level of training required for key staff. There is an apparent lack of formal budgetary support from health services for CES activities, with support derived mostly from staff who contribute their time in addition to their primary roles.

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.

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.

Hospital Ethics Committees in Poland

According to UNESCO guidelines, one of the four forms of bioethics committees in medicine are the Hospital Ethics Committees (HECs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the above guidelines are implemented in real practice. There were 111 hospitals selected out of 176 Polish clinical hospitals and hospitals accredited by Center of Monitoring Quality in Health System. The study was conducted by the survey method. There were 56 (50%) hospitals that responded to the survey. The number of HECs members fluctuated between 3 and 16 members, where usually 5 (22% of HECs) members were part of the board committee. The composition of the HECs for professions other than physicians was diverse and non-standardized (nurses-in 86% of HECs, clergy-42%, lawyers-38%, psychologists-28%, hospital management-23%, rehab staff-7 %, patient representatives-3%, ethicists-2%). Only 55% of HECs had a professional set of standards. 98% of HECs had specific tasks. 62% of HECs were asked for their expertise, and 55% prepared <6.88% of the opinions were related to interpersonal relations between hospital personnel, patients and their families with emphasis on the interactions between superiors and their inferiors or hospital staff and patients and their families. Only 12% of the opinions were reported by the respondents as related to ethical dilemmas. In conclusion, few Polish hospitals have HECs, and the structure, services and workload are not always adequate. To ensure a reliable operation of HECs requires the development of relevant legislation, standard operating procedures and well trained members.

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.

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.

Goals of clinical ethics support: perceptions of Dutch healthcare institutions

In previous literature, ethicists mention several goals of Clinical Ethics Support (CES). It is unknown what key persons in healthcare institutions see as main–—and sub-goals of CES. This article presents the goals of CES as perceived by board members and members of ethics support staff. This is part of a Dutch national research using a mixed methods design with questionnaires, focus groups and interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed and combined in an iterative process. Four main clusters of goals were found: 1) encouraging an ethical climate, 2) fostering an accountable and transparent organization, 3) developing professionalism and a final goal, overarching the previous three, 4) good care. Most important sub-goals of CES were: attention for ethical issues, raising awareness of ethical issues, fostering ethical reflection and supporting employees. The article ends with a discussion on the desirability to further operationalize the general goal of good care, the context-boundedness of our findings and the need to relate goals of CES to the features of organizational cultures to further improve the integration of CES in healthcare institutions.

Comparison of ethical judgments exhibited by clients and ethics consultants in Japan

Background

Healthcare professionals must make decisions for patients based on ethical considerations. However, they rely on clinical ethics consultations (CEC) to review ethical justifications of their decisions. CEC consultants support the cases reviewed and guide medical care. When both healthcare professionals and CEC consultants face ethical problems in medical care, how is their judgment derived? How do medical judgments differ from the ethical considerations of CECs? This study examines CECs in Japan to identify differences in the ethical judgment of clients and CEC consultants.

Methods

The CEC request and response documents of all 60 cases reviewed across Japan between October 2006 and the end of October 2011 were classified in terms of the presence of decisional capacity in the patient. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the differences in reasoning between client and CEC consultants. Reasoned judgments were verified in individual cases to classify the similarities or differences of opinion between CEC clients and teams.

Results

As the result of classification of the decisional capacity and the difference of opinion regarding medical care, the most frequent category was 25 cases (41.7%) of “uncertain decisional capacity,” and 23 cases (38.3%) of “withholding of decision-making.” A chi-square analysis was performed on presence of decisional capacity and agreement in decision-making, yielding a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The CEC consultants’ reasoning was based on “patient’s preference was ambiguous,” “validity of family as a surrogate,” “estimation of patient preference,” and “patient’s best interest,” whereas the CEC client’s reasoning was based on “consistent family preference was shown/not shown” and “appropriate therapeutic methods to manage patient safety.”

Conclusion

Differences in opinions were found in cases classified according to decisional capacity. Furthermore, the reasoning behind judgments differed between CEC clients and CEC consultants. The reasoning of CEC consultants was critical and reflective, while for clients it was situational and pragmatic.

Ethical challenges and how to develop ethics support in primary health care

Ethics support in primary health care has been sparser than in hospitals, the need for ethics support is probably no less. We have, however, limited knowledge about how to develop ethics support that responds to primary health-care workers’ needs. In this article, we present a survey with a mixture of closed- and open-ended questions concerning: How frequent and how distressed various types of ethical challenges make the primary health-care workers feel, how important they think it is to deal with these challenges better and what kind of ethics support they want. Five primary health-care institutions participated. Ethical challenges seem to be prominent and common. Most frequently, the participants experienced ethical challenges related to scarce resources and lack of knowledge and skills. Furthermore, ethical challenges related to communication and decision making were common. The participants welcomed ethics support responding to their challenges and being integrated in their daily practices.

‘I just love these sessions’. Should physician satisfaction matter in clinical ethics consultations?

Clinical ethics committees aim to resolve conflict, facilitate communication and ease moral distress in health care. Dialogue in committee discussions is complex and involves a balance between implicitly and explicitly expressed values of patients, families and professionals. Evaluating effectiveness and concrete outcomes is challenging and most studies focus on broad benefits such as quality of care and reduction of unnecessary or unwanted treatments. In this paper we propose ‘physician satisfaction’ as a valuable outcome. We refer to the clinical ethics approach followed at one large paediatric hospital in Australia, propose reasons for the often-expressed feeling of satisfaction and discuss why this feeling matters. We conclude that physician satisfaction is a valid measure of an effective ethics consultation because it implies the person has been listened to and respected by others, and has perhaps developed greater understanding of and insights into their own work and values, and those of others.

Institutional challenges for clinical ethics committees

Clinical ethics committees (CECs) have been developing in many countries since the 1980s, more recently in the transitional countries in Eastern Europe. With their increasing profile they are now faced with a range of questions and challenges regarding their position within the health care organizations in which they are situated: Should CECs be independent bodies with a critical role towards institutional management, or should they be an integral part of the hospital organization? In this paper, we discuss the organizational context in which CECs function in Europe focusing on five aspects. We conclude that in Europe clinical ethics committees need to maintain a critical independence while generating acceptance of the CEC and its potential benefit to both individuals and the organization. CECs, perhaps particularly in transitional countries, must counter the charge of "alibi ethics". CECs must define their contribution to in-house quality management in their respective health care organization, clarifying how ethical reflection on various levels serves the hospital and patient care in general. This last challenge is made more difficult by lack of consensus about appropriate quality outcomes for CECs internationally. These are daunting challenges, but the fact that CECs continue to develop suggests that we should make the effort to overcome them. We believe there is a need for further research that specifically addresses some of the institutional challenges facing CECs.

Core competencies for clinical ethics committees

Clinical ethics committees (CECs) are increasing in number in the UK and have mostly developed in response to local interest, as opposed to being mandated as in the USA. However, there is no regulatory framework for UK CECs with no defined educational requirements or specification of core competencies for their members. The UK Clinical Ethics Network has consulted extensively with its members to set out, for the first time in the UK, the core competencies necessary for the provision of clinical ethics support. Recommendations for educational and membership requirements for CECs have also been made. Given the appropriate resources the standards proposed can be appropriately evaluated and are consistent with principles of ethical governance.

The use of clinical ethics committees in infertility clinics

Clinical ethics committees (CECs) are increasingly used in UK health care (Slowther et al., 2004a). However, there has been little debate about their use in infertility units. Current HFEA guidance on CECs encourages their use in aiding ethical decision making but this is not required by the code of practice or obligated by law. It will be argued that the HFEA should strengthen its guidance on CECs by recommending that all infertility clinics should have a designated CEC (where possible) as a matter of good practice and such a recommendation should be formalised in the HFEA's Code of practice. The article will conclude with recommendations for a particular model of CECs in infertility units.

Barriers and challenges in clinical ethics consultations: the experiences of nine clinical ethics committees

Clinical ethics committees have recently been established in nearly all Norwegian hospital trusts. One important task for these committees is clinical ethics consultations. This qualitative study explores significant barriers confronting the ethics committees in providing such consultation services. The interviews with the committees indicate that there is a substantial need for clinical ethics support services and, in general, the committee members expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for the committee work. They also reported, however, that tendencies to evade moral disagreement, conflict, and 'outsiders' are common in the hospitals. Sometimes even the committees comply with some of these tendencies. The committees agree that there is a need to improve their routines and procedures, clarify the committees' profile and field of responsibility, to make the committees well-known, to secure adequate operating conditions, and to develop organizational integration and support. Various strategies to meet these challenges on a local, regional or national level are also explored in this paper.

Health professionals: how much employee loyalty should we expect in a privatising system?

In recent years UK government policy has been drawing private companies into the operation of the British National Health Service as providers of health care. Hitherto the National Health Service has been the main employer of health care practitioners, but this may change as a result of this development. There is an issue as to whether professional health care practitioners owe the same moral commitment to an employer in the private sector as they would owe to an employer that is part of the state-run National Health Service. I explore some arguments around this issue, focusing on ways of identifying organisational commitment to good health care. With regard to the practitioners commitment to the organisation I consider two strengths of commitment, normative and calculative. I then undertake an analysis of performance, regulatory regimes, and organisational obligations for both sectors. I conclude that while performance and regulatory regimes show little difference between sectors, there is a reasonably compelling argument in favour of a stronger moral commitment to state bodies based on organisational obligations.

Clinical Ethics Committees: a due process wasteland?

The development of clinical ethic support in the UK arguably brings with it a series of legal questions, which need to be addressed. Most particularly, these concern questions of due process and formal justice, which I argue are central to the provision of appropriate ethical advice. In this article, I will compare the UK position with the more developed system in the USA, which often provides a template for development in the UK. While it is not argued that the provision of clinical ethics support in the UK will necessarily follow the path mapped in the USA, there are lessons that can be learned from the US experience – particularly in terms of attention to process – from which UK clinical ethics support service might well benefit.

Survey on the experience in ethical decision-making and attitude of Pleven University hospital physicians towards ethics consultation

BACKGROUND

Contemporary medical practice is complicated by many dilemmas requiring ethical sensitivity and moral reasoning.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate physicians' experience in ethical decision-making and their attitude towards ethics consultation.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey 126 physicians representing the main clinics of Pleven University hospital were investigated by a self-administered questionnaire. The following variables were measured: occurrence, nature and ways of resolving ethical problems; physicians' attitudes towards ethics consultation; physicians' opinions on qualities and skills of an ethics consultant, and socio-demographic characteristics. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, chi(2 )and t-test.

RESULTS

Response rate was 88.9% (n = 112). Men and women were equally represented (48.2%-51.8%). The sample consisted of experienced physicians: 42.9% had 11-20 years experience, and 33% had 21-30 years. According to 84.8% of respondents, ethical problems have been discussed in their specialty. Predominant dilemmas included relationships with patients and relatives (76.8%) and team work (67.6%). Over (3/4) of physicians needed an advice in solving ethical problems. Ninety six percent responded positively to ethics consultation. They would mainly request it for resolving conflicts (72.5%), and in case of concern for the rightness of their decisions (52.7%). The image of an ethics consultant was built of clinical competence (70.9%), ability to deal with conflicts (59.1%), communication skills (58.2%), tolerance for different views (55.4%), and a special qualification in ethics (52.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study underlined that Pleven University hospital physicians face similar ethical dilemmas as their colleagues in other countries do. The expressed positive attitudes to ethics consultation should serve as a basis for further research and development of ethics consultation services.

Clinical ethics consultation: examining how American and Japanese experts analyze an Alzheimer's case

Background

Few comparative studies of clinical ethics consultation practices have been reported. The objective of this study was to explore how American and Japanese experts analyze an Alzheimer's case regarding ethics consultation.

Methods

We presented the case to physicians and ethicists from the US and Japan (one expert from each field from both countries; total = 4) and obtained their responses through a questionnaire and in-depth interviews.

Results

Establishing a consensus was a common goal among American and Japanese participants. In attempting to achieve consensus, the most significant similarity between Japanese and American ethics consultants was that they both appeared to adopt an "ethics facilitation" approach. Differences were found in recommendation and assessment between the American and Japanese participants. In selecting a surrogate, the American participants chose to contact the grandson before designating the daughter-in-law as the surrogate decision-maker. Conversely the Japanese experts assumed that the daughter-in-law was the surrogate.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that consensus building through an "ethics facilitation" approach may be a commonality to the practice of ethics consultation in the US and Japan, while differences emerged in terms of recommendations, surrogate assessment, and assessing treatments. Further research is needed to appreciate differences not only among different nations including, but not limited to, countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but also within each country.

What and who are clinical ethics committees for?

As support for clinical ethics committees in the UK grows, care must be taken to define their function, membership and method of working and the status of their decisions.

An eight-year follow-up national study of medical school and general hospital ethics committees in Japan

BACKGROUND

Ethics committees and their system of research protocol peer-review are currently used worldwide. To ensure an international standard for research ethics and safety, however, data is needed on the quality and function of each nation's ethics committees. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics and developments of ethics committees established at medical schools and general hospitals in Japan.

METHODS

This study consisted of four national surveys sent twice over a period of eight years to two separate samples. The first target was the ethics committees of all 80 medical schools and the second target was all general hospitals with over 300 beds in Japan (n = 1457 in 1996 and n = 1491 in 2002). Instruments contained four sections: (1) committee structure, (2) frequency of annual meetings, (3) committee function, and (4) existence of a set of guidelines for the refusal of blood transfusion by Jehovah's Witnesses.

RESULTS

Committee structure was overall interdisciplinary. Frequency of annual meetings increased significantly for both medical school and hospital ethics committees over the eight years. The primary activities for medical school and hospital ethics committees were research protocol reviews and policy making. Results also showed a significant increase in the use of ethical guidelines, particularly those related to the refusal of blood transfusion by Jehovah's Witnesses, among both medical school and hospital ethics committees.

CONCLUSION

Overall findings indicated a greater recognized degree of responsibilities and an increase in workload for Japanese ethics committees.

CLINICAL ETHICS COMMITTEES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM: TOWARDS EVALUATION

In the United Kingdom there is a growing conviction that CECs have an important role to play in helping health care professionals address ethical dilemmas. For example, the Royal College of Physicians, the Nuffield Trust and the unofficial Clinical Ethics Network, which has received financial support from the Department of Health, commend the use of CECs in the UK. The growth of such committees has been influenced by the legal and policy support they have received in the United States. However, there is increasing concern about both the benefits and the quality of work produced by CECs. In addition, despite the rapid increase in the number of CECs in the UK, outside of the United States they remain under-researched and no formal mechanism exists to assess their performance. As a result we know little about the structure, function, impact and effectiveness of CECs. We are currently conducting a research project funded by the Wellcome Trust that seeks to interrogate the competing claims regarding the benefits and disbenefits of CECs. This initial account of our research provides a detailed analysis of theoretical issues that surround the development and use of CECs and points towards the questions that lie at the heart of the social science strand of our project.

Project examining effectiveness in clinical ethics (PEECE): phase 1-- descriptive analysis of nine clinical ethics services

OBJECTIVE

The field of clinical ethics is relatively new and expanding. Best practices in clinical ethics against which one can benchmark performance have not been clearly articulated. The first step in developing benchmarks of clinical ethics services is to identify and understand current practices.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Using a retrospective case study approach, the structure, activities, and resources of nine clinical ethics services in a large metropolitan centre are described, compared, and contrasted.

RESULTS

The data yielded a unique and detailed account of the nature and scope of clinical ethics services across a spectrum of facilities. General themes emerged in four areas-variability, visibility, accountability, and complexity. There was a high degree of variability in the structures, activities, and resources across the clinical ethics services. Increasing visibility was identified as a significant challenge within organisations and externally. Although each service had a formal system for maintaining accountability and measuring performance, differences in the type, frequency, and content of reporting impacted service delivery. One of the most salient findings was the complexity inherent in the provision of clinical ethics services, which requires of clinical ethicists a broad and varied skill set and knowledge base. Benchmarks including the average number of consults/ethicist per year and the hospital beds/ethicist ratio are presented.

CONCLUSION

The findings will be of interest to clinical ethicists locally, nationally, and internationally as they provide a preliminary framework from which further benchmarking measures and best practices in clinical ethics can be identified, developed, and evaluated.

Body Worlds: clinical detachment and anatomical awe

If studying anatomy in medical school promotes clinical detachment, how do lay people respond to the crash course in anatomy they receive on visiting the Körperwelten / Body Worlds exhibition? If late modernity's celebration of the living body makes the dead body problematic, how do visitors respond to the aestheticised dead bodies on display? Through examining the written comments of visitors, the article identifies a number of responses. The chief is an elementary scientific gaze in which obvious interest is shown in anatomical details. But because the exhibits are dry, odourless and anonymous, this does not generate the defence of emotional detachment; indeed, among several emotional responses, are fascination and, for some, awe. Body Worlds is less a popularised anatomy lab than a shrine to the human body, a shrine in which medically untrained people can look at the body in new ways.

Teaching anatomy without cadavers

BACKGROUND

Anatomy learning is generally seen as essential to medicine, and exposure to cadavers is generally seen as essential to anatomy learning around the world. Few voices dissenting from these propositions can be identified.

AIMS

This paper aims to consider arguments relating to the use of cadavers in anatomy teaching, and to describe the rationale behind the decision of a new UK medical school not to use cadaveric material.

DISCUSSION

First, the background to use of cadavers in anatomy learning is explored, and some general educational principles are explored. Next, arguments for the use of human cadaveric material are summarised. Then, possible arguments against use of cadavers, including educational principles as well as costs, hazards and practicality, are considered. These are much less well explored in the existing literature. Next, the rationale behind the decision of a new UK medical school not to use cadaveric material is indicated, and the programme of anatomy teaching to be employed in the absence of the use of human remains is described. Curriculum design and development, and evaluation procedures, are briefly described. Issues surrounding pathology training by autopsy, and postgraduate training in surgical anatomy, are not addressed in this paper.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Evidence relating to the effect on medical learning by students not exposed to cadavers is scant, and plainly opportunities will now arise through our programme to gather such evidence. We anticipate that this discussion paper will contribute to an ongoing debate, in which virtually all previous papers on this topic have concluded that use of cadavers is essential to medical learning.

Ethical challenges in end-of-life therapies in the elderly

With the increasing numbers of elderly in the population of all western countries and the increasing life expectancy at birth, many seniors spend the last period of their life with various afflictions that may require the need for long-term institutional care. During the last period of life, many seniors and their families face decisions that challenge ethical principles and may cause conflict among family members as well as healthcare professionals. The commonly used ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice, although forming a useful foundation for the evaluation of decision-making dilemmas, alone cannot resolve many clinically challenging situations. Healthcare professionals must clearly understand the clinical state of the patient for whom a difficult decision is being contemplated. Levels of function, clinical symptoms, the expected trajectory of change and possible treatment options have to be balanced against the person's values and wishes, either self-expressed directly or through an advance directive, or communicated by surrogate decision makers. At times, physicians face difficult treatment dilemmas when patients or families request treatments that are not legally sanctioned, such as when physician-assisted suicide is requested by a suffering patient. At other times conflicts occur when patients or surrogates wish to continue with therapies that are no longer considered necessary or suitable by the physician. At the societal level, sometimes an expensive drug that is deemed necessary by the physicians is not covered by a government-sponsored or private health plan. The issue of distributive justice must be considered in a situation such as when long-term facilities or acute hospitals treating frail, cognitively impaired elders consider withholding or withdrawing various treatments because of poor clinical outcomes coupled with excessive costs. The often controversial issue of nutrition and hydration in the end-of-life period frequently causes treatment conflicts and dilemmas among surrogates and staff, as does the highly charged issue of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in this frail and very vulnerable population. The real challenge for healthcare providers in the field of geriatric long-term care is to balance compassionate and appropriate care with respect for the choices and wishes of patients and their families. This should be accomplished while at the same time safeguarding the professional standards and ethical integrity of healthcare providers responsible for this care.