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)

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)

Objective—To identify and describe the current state of clinical ethics support services in the UK.Design—A series of questionnaire surveys of key individuals in National Health Service (NHS) trusts, health authorities, health boards, local research ethics committees and health professional organisations. Interviews with chairmen/women of clinical ethics committees identified in the surveys.Setting—The UK National Health Service.Results—Responses to the questionnaires were received from all but one NHS trust and all but one health authority/board. A variety of models of clinical ethics support were (...) identified including twenty formal clinical ethics committees (CECs). A further twenty NHS trusts expressed an intention to establish a CEC within the next twelve months. Most CECs in the UK have been in existence less than five years and are still defining their role. The chairmen identified education of committee members and contact with other ethics committees as important requirements for committee development. Problems were identified around lack of support for the committee and with raising the profile of the committee within the institution. There has been little evaluation of clinical ethics support services either in the UK or in other countries with longer established services. What evaluation has occurred has focused on process rather than outcome measures.Conclusions—Clinical ethics support services are developing in the UK. A number of issues have been identified that need to be addressed if such support services are to develop effectively. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

BackgroundClinical ethics consultations can be complex interventions, involving multiple methods, stakeholders, and competing ethical values. Despite longstanding calls for rigorous evaluation in the field, progress has been limited. The Medical Research Council proposed guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of complex interventions. The evaluation of CEC may benefit from application of the MRC framework to advance the transparency and methodological rigor of this field. A first step is to understand the outcomes measured in evaluations of CEC in healthcare settings. ObjectiveThe primary (...) objective of this review was to identify and map the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC. The secondary objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of CEC structures, processes, and roles to enhance understanding and to inform standardization.MethodsWe searched electronic databases to identify primary studies of CEC involving patients, substitute decision-makers and/or family members, clinicians, healthcare staff and leaders. Outcomes were mapped across five conceptual domains as identified a priori based on our clinical ethics experience and preliminary literature searches and revised based on our emerging interpretation of the data. These domains included personal factors, process factors, clinical factors, quality, and resource factors. ResultsForty-eight studies were included in the review. Studies were highly heterogeneous and varied considerably regarding format and process of ethical intervention, credentials of interventionist, population of study, outcomes reported, and measures employed. In addition, few studies used validated measurement tools. The top three outcome domains that studies reported on were quality, process factors, and clinical factors. The majority of studies examined multiple outcome domains. All five outcome domains were multidimensional and included a variety of subthemes.ConclusionsThis scoping review represents the initial phase of mapping the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC and identifying gaps in the evidence. The confirmed lack of standardization represents a hindrance to the provision of high quality intervention and CEC scientific progress. Insights gained can inform the development of a core outcome set to standardize outcome measures in CEC evaluation research and enable scientifically rigorous efficacy trials of CEC. (shrink)

Wie muss ein ethischer Beratungsdienst strukturiert sein, damit er in moralischen Konfliktsituationen im klinischen Alltag angefragt wird und die Ratsuchenden ergebnisorientiert unterstützen kann? Nach welchen Kriterien lassen sich die Beratungsgespräche auswerten und bewerten? Zur Beantwortung dieser Fragen werden theoretisch fundierte Konzepte ethischer Fallbesprechung aus Nimwegen, Leuven und Basel herangezogen; dies geschieht vor dem Hintergrund der Erfahrungen mit der über zehnjährigen Entwicklung der ethischen Arbeit im Ev. Krankenhaus Bielefeld (EvKB). Als Resultat stellen wir einen strukturierten, multidisziplinären Ansatz vor, mit dem in (...) den Beratungsgesprächen die ethischen Dimensionen unterschiedlicher Vorstellungen herausgearbeitet und möglichst einvernehmlichen Lösungen zugeführt werden. Am Beispiel des EvKB lässt sich zeigen, dass der ethische Beratungsdienst auch in Zeiten knapper Ressourcen implementiert und praktiziert werden kann und eine Gesprächskultur schafft, die zu neuen Zielvariablen führt; hier spielen der Perspektivenwechsel und die Prozessgerechtigkeit eine zentrale Rolle und liefern zugleich Ansatzpunkte für unsere eigene Evaluationsstrategie. Zum aktuellen Stand der Evaluation klinischer Ethikberatung wird die internationale Literatur kritisch gewürdigt. Erste konzeptionelle Ansätze und Ergebnisse einer eigenen Evaluationsstrategie werden vorgestellt. Durch die Offenlegung hoffen wir, die Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Themen zu intensivieren. (shrink)

Wie muss ein ethischer Beratungsdienst strukturiert sein, damit er in moralischen Konfliktsituationen im klinischen Alltag angefragt wird und die Ratsuchenden ergebnisorientiert unterstützen kann? Nach welchen Kriterien lassen sich die Beratungsgespräche auswerten und bewerten? Zur Beantwortung dieser Fragen werden theoretisch fundierte Konzepte ethischer Fallbesprechung aus Nimwegen, Leuven und Basel herangezogen; dies geschieht vor dem Hintergrund der Erfahrungen mit der über zehnjährigen Entwicklung der ethischen Arbeit im Ev. Krankenhaus Bielefeld (EvKB). Als Resultat stellen wir einen strukturierten, multidisziplinären Ansatz vor, mit dem in (...) den Beratungsgesprächen die ethischen Dimensionen unterschiedlicher Vorstellungen herausgearbeitet und möglichst einvernehmlichen Lösungen zugeführt werden. Am Beispiel des EvKB lässt sich zeigen, dass der ethische Beratungsdienst auch in Zeiten knapper Ressourcen implementiert und praktiziert werden kann und eine Gesprächskultur schafft, die zu neuen Zielvariablen führt; hier spielen der Perspektivenwechsel und die Prozessgerechtigkeit eine zentrale Rolle und liefern zugleich Ansatzpunkte für unsere eigene Evaluationsstrategie. Zum aktuellen Stand der Evaluation klinischer Ethikberatung wird die internationale Literatur kritisch gewürdigt. Erste konzeptionelle Ansätze und Ergebnisse einer eigenen Evaluationsstrategie werden vorgestellt. Durch die Offenlegung hoffen wir, die Auseinandersetzung mit diesen Themen zu intensivieren. (shrink)