The prevalence of Clinical ethics support services is increasing. Yet, questions about what quality of CES entails and how to foster the quality of CES remain. This paper describes the development of a national network, which aimed to conceptualize and foster the quality of CES in the Netherlands simultaneously. Our methodology was inspired by a responsive evaluation approach which shares some of our key theoretical presuppositions of CES. A responsive evaluation methodology engages stakeholders in developing quality standards of a certain (...) practice, instead of evaluating a practice by predefined standards. In this paper, we describe the relationship between our theoretical viewpoint on CES and a responsive evaluation methodology. Then we describe the development of the network and focus on three activities that exemplify our approach. In the discussion, we reflect on the similarities and differences between our approach and other international initiatives focusing on the quality of CES. (shrink)

BackgroundAmidst 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.MethodsGuided 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.ResultsNine 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.ConclusionThis 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. (shrink)

Background Fair prioritization of healthcare resources has been on the agenda for decades, but resource allocation dilemmas in clinical practice remain challenging. Can clinical ethics committees be of help? The aim of the study was to explore whether and how CECs handle priority setting dilemmas and contribute to raising awareness of fairness concerns. Method Descriptions of activities involving priority setting in annual reports from Norwegian CECs were studied and categorized through qualitative content analysis. Results Three hundred thirty-nine reports from 38 (...) CECs were studied. We found 78 activities where resource use or priority setting were explicitly highlighted as main topics. Of these, 29 were seminars or other educational activities, 21 were deliberations on individual patient cases, whereas 28 were discussions of principled or general cases. Individual patient cases concerned various distributional dilemmas where values were at stake. Six main topics and seven roles for the CEC were identified. CECs handle issues concerning the introduction of new costly drugs, extraordinarily costly established treatment, the application of priority setting criteria, resource use for vulnerable groups, resource constraints compromising practice, and futility of care. The CEC can act as an analyst, advisor, moderator, disseminator, facilitator, watch dog, and guardian of values and laws. Discussion In order to fulfil their responsibilities in handling priority setting cases, CECs need knowledge of both the ethics and the institutionalized systems of priority setting. There is potential for developing this aspect of the CECs’ work further. Conclusions The Norwegian CECs are involved in priority setting decisions where they can play multiple constructive roles. In particular, they advise and raise awareness of ethical aspects in resource allocations; bridge clinical practice with higher-level decisions; and promote fair resource allocation and stakeholder rights and interests. (shrink)

Background The aim was to explore how the clinical ethics committees in Norway have worked and functioned within mental health care and addiction treatment services. Methods Analysis of 256 annual reports from clinical ethics committees from 2003 to 2012 and a survey to clinicians who had used a clinical ethics committee. Results Dilemmas related to coercion, confidentiality, information, and patient autonomy dominated. The committees established only for psychiatric hospitals, had received more cases from mental health and addiction services than the (...) committees also serving somatic services. Many of the case discussions involved both somatic and mental health care, complicated legal issues as well as ethical dilemmas. Mental health care professionals that have used the clinical ethics committees evaluated the clinical ethics committees deliberation as useful. Conclusion Given the many difficult ethical dilemmas in mental health care ethics work need to be strengthened. The complexity of the cases requires varied and interdisciplinary competence and training among the clinical ethics committee members. (shrink)

BackgroundInternationally, clinical ethics support has yet to be implemented systematically in community health and care services. A large-scale Norwegian project attempted to increase ethical competence in community services through facilitating the implementation of ethics support activities in 241 Norwegian municipalities. The article describes the ethics project and the ethics activities that ensued.MethodsThe article first gives an account of the Norwegian ethics project. Then the results of two online questionnaires are reported, characterizing the scope, activities and organization of the ethics activities (...) in the Norwegian municipalities and the ethical topics addressed.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-seven municipal contact persons answered the first survey, whereas 217 ethics facilitators from 48 municipalities responded to the second. The Norwegian ethics project is vast in scope, yet has focused on some institutions and professions whilst seldom reaching others. Patients and next of kin were very seldom involved. Through the ethics project employees discussed many important ethical challenges, in particular related to patient autonomy, competence to consent, and cooperation with next of kin. The “ethics reflection group” was the most common venue for ethics deliberation.ConclusionsThe Norwegian project is the first of its kind and scope, and other countries may learn from the Norwegian experiences. Professionals have discussed central ethical dilemmas, the handling of which arguably makes a difference for patients/users and service quality. The study indicates that large scale implementation of CES structures for the municipal health and care services is complex, yet feasible. (shrink)

BackgroundHow should clinical ethics support services such as clinical ethics committees (CECs) be implemented and evaluated? We argue that both the CEC itself and theimplementationof the CEC should be considered as ‘complex interventions’.Main textWe present a research project involving the implementation of CECs in community care in four Norwegian municipalities. We show that when both the CEC and its implementation are considered as complex interventions, important consequences follow – both for implementation and the study thereof. Emphasizing four such sets of (...) consequences, we argue, first, that the complexity of the intervention necessitates small-scale testing before larger-scale implementation and testing is attempted; second, that it is necessary to theorize the intervention in sufficient depth; third, that the identification of casual connections charted in so-called logic models allows the identification of factors that are vital for the intervention to succeed and which must therefore be studied; fourth, that an important part of a feasibility study must be to identify and chart as many as possible of the causally important contextual factors.ConclusionThe conceptualization of the implementation of a CEC as a complex intervention shapes the intervention and the way evaluation research should be performed, in several significant ways. We recommend that researchers consider whether a complex intervention approach is called for when studying CESS implementation and impact. (shrink)

How may clinical ethics committees inspire ethical reflection among healthcare professionals? How may they deal with organizational ethics issues? In recent years, Norwegian CECs have attempted different activites that stretch or go beyond the standard trio of education, consultation, and policy work. We studied the novel activities of Norwegian CECs by examining annual reports and interviewing CEC members. Through qualitative analysis we identified nine categories of novel CEC activities, which we describe by way of examples. In light of the findings, (...) we argue that some novel working methods may be well suited to promote ethical reflection among clinicians, and that the CEC may be a suitable venue for discussing issues of organizational ethics. (shrink)

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. (shrink)