Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU) are complex interdisciplinary environments where challenging, high stakes decisions are frequently encountered. We assert that appropriate decisions are more likely to be made if the decision-making process is comprehensive, reasoned, and grounded in thoughtful deliberation. Strategies to overcome barriers to high quality decision-making including, cognitive and implicit bias, group think, inadequate information gathering, and poor quality deliberation should be incorporated. Several general frameworks for decision-making exist, but specific guidance is scarce. In this paper, we provide (...) specific guidance on collaborative complex decision-making for PICUs. The proposed approach is on principles of procedural justice and pragmatic hermeneutics. The process encompasses set-up/planning, information gathering, question formulation, analysis (perspectives, values, and principles), action plan development, decision documentation, and a review and appeal mechanism. The process can be adapted to suit other clinical contexts. Research evaluating the process, exploring how best to develop education for clinicians, and how to build a culture that values high quality deliberation, is worthwhile. (shrink)

Background: Clinical ethics support instruments aim to support healthcare professionals in dealing with moral challenges in clinical practice. CURA is a relatively new instrument tailored to the wishes and needs of healthcare professionals in palliative care, especially nurses. It aims to foster their moral resilience and moral competences. Aim: To investigate the effects of using CURA on healthcare professionals regarding their Moral Resilience and Moral Competences. Design: Single group pre-/post-test design with two questionnaires. Methods: Questionnaires used were the Rushton Moral (...) Resilience Scale measuring Moral Resilience and the Euro-MCD, measuring Moral Competences. Respondents mainly consisted of nurses and nurse assistants who used CURA in daily practice. Forty-seven respondents contributed to both pre- and post-test with 18 months between both tests. Analysis was done using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. This study followed the SQUIRE checklist. Ethical considerations: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Amsterdam UMC. Informed consent was obtained from all respondents. Results: The total Moral Resilience score and the scores of two subscales of the RMRS, that is, Responses to Moral Adversity and Relational Integrity, increased significantly. All subscales of the Euro-MCD increased significantly at posttest. Using CURA more often did not lead to significant higher scores on most (sub) scales. Conclusion: This study indicates that CURA can be used to foster moral resilience and moral competences of healthcare professionals. CURA therefore is a promising instrument to support healthcare professionals in dealing with moral challenges in everyday practice. (shrink)

Measuring outcomes using quantitative analytic methods is the hallmark of scientific research in healthcare. For clinical ethics support services (CESS), tangible outcome metrics are lacking and literature examining CESS quality is limited to evaluation of single cases or the influence on individual healthcare professional’s perceptions or behaviour. This represents an enormous barrier to implementing and evaluating ethics initiatives to improve quality. In this context, Kok _et al_ propose a theoretical framework for how moral case deliberation (MCD) can drive quality at (...) an organisational-level, termed _morisprudence_ 1. By offering mechanistic insights into how MCD can lead to organisational learning and quality improvement (QI), they provide a roadmap for actionable items to measure quality. As conceptualised, _morisprudence_ follows accumulation of organisational practical wisdom from a repertoire of ‘paradigmatic’ MCDs, aiding identification of patterns of morally important features. Here, there are parallels between healthcare professionals’ clinical judgement, where past experience... (shrink)

Evaluating the impact of clinical ethics support services remains a challenging task. 1 Against this background, we applaud the authors for developing a theoretical framework that aims to explain how repeated moral case deliberations may promote ‘practical wisdom’ in healthcare professionals and improve the quality of care in health facilities. 2 In our view, it is of particular value to draw attention to the learning processes that may be induced by ethics support services. Understanding such learning processes on the individual (...) and organisational level is a prerequisite for longitudinal research designs that may be suitable to study the impact of specific ethics support services on criteria deemed relevant in patient care. 3 In our comment, we would like to focus on one aspect, which we deem necessary to be able to explain the possible impact of ethics support on the quality of healthcare. This is the... (shrink)

We applaud the authors’ efforts to provide a theoretical basis for and more clearly link clinical ethics support services (CESS) to organisational-level quality improvement (QI). We agree that additional theorising and testing of the resultant theoretical frameworks is of benefit to the field of clinical ethics and that the outcome of a CESS is more valuable than the sum of the individual cases that it handles. We would suggest that the authors have emphasised the output of the CESS without fully (...) considering the process by which it happens. While moral case deliberation does provide an example pathway for QI, such improvements do not necessarily need to occur through the mechanism of moral case deliberation. Further engagement with QI literature could provide valuable insights to quality within the field of clinical ethics. For example, combining the QI concepts of organisational culture and high reliability organisations (HROs) with the clinical ethics... (shrink)

In their paper (‘ Morisprudence: a theoretical framework for studying the relationship linking moral case deliberation, organisational learning and quality improvement ‘),1 Kok et al addresses an important topic: how to theoretically think about studying the impact of moral case deliberations and how to conceptualise organisational learning? In this article, they aim to develop a theoretical framework that provides empirically assessable hypotheses that describe the relationship between moral case deliberation and care quality at an organisational level. The authors describe care (...) quality mostly in terms of practical wisdom which they aggregate into both individual and organisational morisprudence. Morisprudence is defined as an ongoing formulation of moral judgements. However, it remains a bit unclear how the theoretical framework of Kok et al may lead to empirically assessable hypotheses. Concepts like ‘quality’, ‘quality of care’, ‘practical wisdom’ and ‘individual and organisational morisprudence’ are not described in detail, let alone operationalised in measurable terms. How should we understand morisprudence in empirical terms? What is a good morisprudence? And how should we measure or conclude whether morisprudence has been improved (or not)? The authors rightfully focus on the need for organisational learning during and through Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). Too often, MCD is only described as the discussion of one patient’s case, thereby implicitly suggesting that the learning process only takes place at the level of an individual case. Yet, based on many years of MCD evaluation research, we know from mostly …. (shrink)

In their recent work, Kok et al propose a theoretical framework for the evaluation of clinical ethical case interventions, in particular moral case deliberation (MCD).1 According to the authors, this framework provides ‘empirically accessible hypothesis that describe the relationship between MCD and care quality at the organisational level’.1 Evaluation of ethical interventions in healthcare is an important topic. As Donabedian has noted, evaluation can be understood as defining reasonable quality expectations and to check by means of empirical research whether and (...) to what extent these expectations have been met.2 If suitable for ethical interventions like MCDs, the carefully compiled framework by Kok et al would surely present a major step towards satisfying the requirements outlined by Donabedian. However, caution is in order whether this holds true. The authors start by observing that most of the recent research regarding the evaluation of MCD tends to follow a paradigm that can be outlined by two premises. First, focusing on quality is justified by the need to provide a rationale for an intervention’s consumption of resources.3 Second, this implies research that is usually centred around the quality …. (shrink)