Deliberative ways of dealing with ethical issues in health care are expanding. Moral case deliberation is an example, providing group-wise, structured reflection on dilemmas from practice. Although moral case deliberation is well described in literature, aims and results of moral case deliberation sessions are unknown. This research shows (a) why managers introduce moral case deliberation and (b) what moral case deliberation participants experience as moral case deliberation results. A responsive evaluation was conducted, explicating moral case deliberation experiences by analysing aims (...) (N = 78) and harvest (N = 255). A naturalistic data collection included interviews with managers and evaluation questionnaires of moral case deliberation participants (nurses). From the analysis, moral case deliberation appeals for cooperation, team bonding, critical attitude towards routines and nurses’ empowerment. Differences are that managers aim to foster identity of the nursing profession, whereas nurses emphasize learning processes and understanding perspectives. We conclude that moral case deliberation influences team cooperation that cannot be controlled with traditional management tools, but requires time and dialogue. Exchanging aims and harvest between manager and team could result in co-creating (moral) practice in which improvements for daily cooperation result from bringing together perspectives of managers and team members. (shrink)

Moral case deliberation is a dialogue among health care professionals about moral issues in practice. A trained facilitator moderates the dialogue, using a conversation method. Often, the facilitator is an ethicist. However, because of the growing interest in MCD and the need to connect MCD to practice, healthcare professionals should also become facilitators themselves. In order to transfer the facilitating expertise to health care professionals, a training program has been developed. This program enables professionals in health care institutions to acquire (...) expertise in dealing with moral questions independent of the expertise of an ethicist. Over the past 10 years, we developed a training program with a specific mix of theory and practice, aiming to foster the right attitude, skills and knowledge of the trainee. The content and the didactics of the training developed in line with the philosophy of MCD: pragmatic hermeneutics, dialogical ethics and Socratic epistemology. Central principles are: ‘learning by doing’, ‘reflection instead of ready made knowledge’, and ‘dialogue on dialogue’. This paper describes the theoretical background and the didactic content of the current training. Furthermore, we present didactic tools which we developed for stimulating active learning. We also go into lessons we learned in developing the training. Next, we provide some preliminary data from evaluation research of the training program by participants. The discussion highlights crucial aspects of educating professionals to become facilitators of MCD. The paper ends with concluding remarks and a plea for more evaluative evidence of the effectiveness and meaning of this training program for doing MCD in institutions. (shrink)

Much attention has been paid to the role of the nurse in recognizing and addressing ethical dilemmas. There has been less emphasis, however, on the issue of whether or not nurses understand the ethical nature of everyday practice. Awareness of the inherently ethical nature of practice is a component of nurse ethical sensitivity, which has been identified as a component of ethical decision-making. Ethical sensitivity is generally accepted as a necessary precursor to moral agency, in that recognition of the ethical (...) content of practice is necessary before consistent action on behalf of patient interests can take place. This awareness is also compulsory in ensuring patient good by recognizing the unique interests and wishes of individuals, in line with an ethic of care. Scholarly and research literature are used to argue that bolstering ethical awareness and ensuring that nurses understand the ethical nature of the role are an obligation of the profession. Based on this line of reasoning, recommendations for education and practice, along with directions for future research, are suggested. (shrink)

There is little information about the content of ethics consultations in pediatrics. We sought to describe the reasons for consultation and ethical principles addressed during EC in pediatrics through retrospective review and directed content analysis of EC records at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Patient-based EC were highly complex and often involved evaluation of parental decision making, particularly consideration of the risks and benefits of a proposed medical intervention, and the physician's fiduciary responsibility to the patient. Nonpatient consultations provided guidance (...) in the development of institutional policies that would broadly affect patients and families. This is one of the few existing reviews of the content of pediatric EC and indicates that the distribution of ethical issues and reasons for moral distress are different than with adults. Pediatric EC often facilitates complex decision making among multiple stakeholders, and further prospective research is need.. (shrink)

Moral case deliberation (MCD) is a specific form of clinical ethics, aiming to stimulate ethical reflection in daily practice in order to improve the quality of care. This article focuses on the implementation of MCD in nursing homes and the questions how and where to organize MCD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate one way of organizing MCD in two Dutch nursing homes. In both of these nursing homes the MCD groups had a heterogeneous composition and were organized (...) apart from existing institutional communication structures. As part of a naturalistic evaluation, systematic observations, interviews and focus groups were completed. The findings indicate that the heterogeneous composition and MCD meetings separate from existing structures have benefits. However, the participants also reported negative experiences. This gives rise to the question whether a mixed MCD group which meets separately is an effective way to embed MCD as an instrument for reflection on moral issues in daily practice. We conclude that there is no single answer to that question. In the end, the two implementation strategies (i.e. within existing communication structures and a mixed MCD group) can be complementary to each other. (shrink)

Objective: To evaluate one ethics rounds model by describing nurses’ and doctors’ experiences of the rounds. Methods: Philosopher-ethicist-led interprofessional team ethics rounds concerning dialysis patient care problems were applied at three Swedish hospitals. The philosophers were instructed to promote mutual understanding and stimulate ethical reflection, without giving any recommendations or solutions. Interviews with seven doctors and 11 nurses were conducted regarding their experiences from the rounds, which were then analysed using content analysis. Findings: The goal of the rounds was partly (...) fulfilled. Participants described both positive and negative experiences. Good rounds included stimulation to broadened thinking, a sense of connecting, strengthened confidence to act, insight into moral responsibility and emotional relief. Negative experiences were associated with a sense of unconcern and alienation, as well as frustration with the lack of solutions and a sense of resignation that change is not possible. The findings suggest that the ethics rounds above all met the need of a forum for crossing over professional boundaries. The philosophers seemed to play an important role in structuring and stimulating reasoned arguments. The nurses’ expectation that solutions to the ethical problems would be sought despite explicit instructions to the contrary was conspicuous. Conclusion: When assisting healthcare professionals to learn a way through ethical problems in patient care, a balance should be found between ethical analyses, conflict resolution and problem solving. A model based on the findings is presented. (shrink)

Clinical ethics has developed significantly in Europe over the past 15 years and remains an evolving process. While sharing our experiences in different European settings, we were surprised to discover marked differences in our practice, especially regarding the position and role of patients. In this paper, we describe these differences, such as patient access to and participation or representation in ethics consults. We propose reasons to explain these differences, hypothesizing that they relate to the historic and sociocultural context of implementation (...) of clinical ethics consultation services (Cecs), as well as the initial aims for which each structure was established. Then, we analyse those differences with common ethical arguments arising in patient involvement. We conclude that there is no unique model of best practice for patient involvement in clinical ethics, as far as Cecs reflect on how to deal with the challenging ethical issues raised by patient role and position. (shrink)

The procedures for structuring clinical ethics case reflections in a childhood cancer care setting are presented, including an eight-step model. Four notable characteristics of the procedures are: members of the inter-professional health care team, not external experts, taking a leading role in the reflections; patients or relatives not being directly involved; the model explicitly addressing values and moral principles instead of focussing exclusively on the interests of involved parties; using a case-based (inductive) rather than principle-based (deductive) method. By discusing the (...) advantages and disadvantages of the proposed procedures, our paper aims to contribute to the literature on models and procedures for ethical analysis that can be used in clinical settings. It is suggested that our proposed procedures have some advantageous features when it comes to promoting health care staff’s learning to structure their thinking about ethical issues. (shrink)

Background: Childhood cancer care involves many ethical concerns. Deciding on treatment levels and providing care that infringes on the child’s growing autonomy are known ethical concerns that involve the whole professional team around the child’s care. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore healthcare professionals’ experiences of participating in ethics case reflection sessions in childhood cancer care. Research design: Data collection by observations, individual interviews, and individual encounters. Data analysis were conducted following grounded theory methodology. Participants and research (...) context: Healthcare professionals working at a publicly funded children’s hospital in Sweden participated in ethics case reflection sessions in which ethical issues concerning clinical cases were reflected on. Ethical considerations: The children’s and their parents’ integrity was preserved through measures taken to protect patient identity during ethics case reflection sessions. The study was approved by a regional ethical review board. Findings: Consolidating care by clarifying perspectives emerged. Consolidating care entails striving for common care goals and creating a shared view of care and the ethical concern in the specific case. The inter-professional perspectives on the ethical aspects of care are clarified by the participants’ articulated views on the case. Different approaches for deliberating ethics are used during the sessions including raising values and making sense, leading to unifying interactions. Discussion: The findings indicate that ethical concerns could be eased by implementing ethics case reflection sessions. Conflicting perspectives can be turned into unifying interactions in the healthcare professional team with the common aim to achieve good pediatric care. Conclusion: Ethics case reflection sessions is valuable as it permits the discussion of values in healthcare-related issues in childhood cancer care. Clarifying perspectives, on the ethical concerns, enables healthcare professionals to reflect on the most reasonable and ethically defensible care for the child. A consolidated care approach would be valuable for both the child and the healthcare professionals because of the common care goals. (shrink)

To date, few Norwegian clinical ethics committees (CECs) have included patients or next of kin in case discussions. In 2008, Rikshospitalet's (The National Hospital's) CEC began to routinely invite patients and relatives into case discussions. In this paper, we describe seven cases discussed by this committee in 2008. Six involved life and death decision-making in collaboration with the next of kin, while one related case did not include relatives. In our opinion, representing the patient's perspective was advantageous to the discussion (...) itself, to the conclusion made and to the next of kin's acceptance of the resolution. We believe that if the patient had been represented in the last case, the outcome might have been different. We conclude that successful patient involvement will rely on well-structured case discussions, an open atmosphere and good preparation and follow-up. (shrink)

The Clinical ethics centre in Paris offers its services equally to doctors and patients/proxies. Its primary goal is to re-equilibrate doctor–patient roles through giving greater voice to patients individually in medical decisions. Patients are present at virtually all levels, initiating consults, providing their point of view and receiving feedback. The implications of patients' involvement are threefold. At an operational level, decision-making is facilitated by repositioning the debate on ethical grounds and introducing a dynamic of decisional partnership, although contact with patients (...) can make it difficult to deny their demands and set the limits of our role. Ethically, it reinforces patients' autonomy and grants them a place of veritable ethics ‘actors’, with the danger that this may become excessively autonomy oriented. Finally, at a collective level, the programme fulfils its political purpose in promoting patients' rights and the ideal of démocratie sanitaire, but complicates balancing individual demands with collective values. (shrink)

The conference entitled ‘Best Practices in Clinical Ethics Consultation and Decision-Making’, held in London 8–9 July 2010, was the first of its kind dedicated to identifying best practices in clinical ethics consultation and decision-making. Academics, health and social care professionals, clinical ethics committee members, lawyers, service users and carers from the UK, USA, Europe, Canada, Australia and Asia attended lectures, workshops, parallel paper sessions and clinical ethics case discussions across adult, maternity, children's, older persons, mental health and learning disabilities settings. (...) Seventy-eight best-practice points impacting on the quality of clinical ethics consultations and subsequent decisions were identified and grouped into eight themes: who tells the story; how the story is told; how the analysis, discussion and subsequent decisions are made; how values are weighted and balanced against one another; who decides; how the decision is made; how group dynamics and conflict are handled; how decisions are recorded. (shrink)

Background Although methods proposed for the conduct of ethics consultation tend to be viewed as competing approaches, they may in fact function in a complementary manner. Methods We describe the experience of ethics consultation in two ethics committees at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland. Results Both committees provide case consultation by a multi-disciplinary team of committee members, but with different processes. These differences in process do not necessarily lead to differences in outcome. Discussion Different methods of ethics consultation are (...) not mutually exclusive, and can co-exist within the same institution. The practical application of one method of ethics consultation can lead to substantial variations in process between different groups of consultants. Conclusion Despite the importance of clarifying theoretical groundings, and consultation and deliberation processes, in ethics consultation, choosing between different processes may not be pressing. To assist these choices, exploration of the practical strengths and weaknesses of different methods will be necessary to assist clinical ethicists, and clinical ethics committees, in acquiring a flexible and evidence-based set of approaches to their work. (shrink)