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 contribution, Kok et al raise a relevant, though often underestimated, issue: clinical ethics support services are often assumed to lead to an improvement of quality of care at the organisational level, but evidence in support of this claim is weak, if not completely lacking.1 Therefore, the authors propose a complex theoretical model connecting a specific kind of CESS, moral case deliberation, with mechanisms for quality of care improvement at the individual and the organisational level. The proposal is original, (...) and the topic discussed of great interest not only to practitioners and researchers dealing with CESS, but also to health policy-makers and managers of healthcare system, for all of whom it is indeed crucial to understand whether and how ethics support can positively impact quality of care. However, despite its undoubtful merits, we feel that some claims and model’s underlying assumptions might require in-depth scrutiny and more solid justification. i. First, the authors discuss two different approaches to understanding quality of care: the first approach, which they define as reductionist, interprets quality as an outcome-oriented, quantitative, and therefore, measurable function. The second approach defines quality …. (shrink)