Clinical ethics consultation is largely outside the scope of regulation and oversight, despite its importance. For decades, the bioethics community has been unable to reach a consensus on whether there should be accountability in this work, as there is for other clinical activities that influence the care of patients. The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, the primary society of bioethicists and scholars in the medical humanities and the organizational home for individuals who perform CEC in the United States, has (...) initiated a two‐step quality attestation process as a means to assess clinical ethics consultants and help identify individuals who are qualified to perform this role. This article describes the process. (shrink)

The Hannover qualifying programme ‘ethics consultation in hospitals’, conducted by a four-institution cooperation partnership, is an interdisciplinary, scientifically based programme for healthcare professionals interested in ethics consultation services and is widely acknowledged by hospital managements and healthcare professionals. It is unique concerning its content, scope and teaching format. With its basic and advanced modules it has provided training and education for 367 healthcare professionals with 570 participations since 2003 (until February 2010). One characteristic feature is its attractiveness for health professionals (...) from different backgrounds. Internationally, the Hannover programme is one of the few schedules with both academics and non-academics as target groups and a high participation rate of physicians. The concept of the Hannover programme is in great demand, and its schedule is continuously optimised through evaluation. The goals of enabling healthcare professionals from different professional backgrounds to define and reflect ethical problems, to facilitate and support the process of decision-making and to work out structures for their own institutions seem to have been achieved. However, in order to obtain effective and sustainable results, participation in the programme should be supplemented regularly by in-house training sessions or individual expert consultations. Future challenges include new thematic courses and providing a network for former participants, especially when they come from non-academic hospitals. The network is a reasonable platform to discuss participants' experiences, successes and pitfalls. A further task will be research on how the programme's concept can support the sustainability of ethics structures in the various institutions. (shrink)

The interdisciplinary Hannover Qualification Programme on ethics consultation has trained hospital staff to operate clinical ethics services in their respective hospitals since 2003. To evaluate Hannover Qualification Programme, all former participants were contacted using an online questionnaire including four domains: status quo before attending Hannover Qualification Programme, present status, impact of Hannover Qualification Programme, future challenges. Research objectives were the long-term satisfaction with Hannover Qualification Programme and its impact on clinical ethics services. The response rate was 45%. Hannover Qualification Programme (...) was evaluated as helpful and the responders were capable of applying their acquired skills. Most participants could contribute to the implementation of clinical ethics services. They were satisfied with Hannover Qualification Programme and with the degree of changes in their hospitals. In conclusion, clinical ethics education had long-term effects on trainees and on their respective hospitals. Problems were mentioned rather in the field of utilisation than with implementation or quality of clinical ethics services. (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)

There is growing interest in clinical ethics. However, we still have sparse knowledge about what is actually going on in the everyday practice of clinical ethics consultations. This paper introduces a descriptive evaluation tool to present, discuss and compare how clinical ethics case consultations are actually carried out. The tool does not aim to define ‘best practice’. Rather, it facilitates concrete comparisons and evaluative discussions of the role, function, procedures and ideals inherent in clinical ethics case consultation practices. The tool (...) was developed during meetings of the European Clinical Ethics Network. Based on written reports and participation in the network meetings, the development and the content of the tool and the results of its application in presenting and discussing 10 case consultations are summarized. The tool facilitated understanding of the details of clinical ethics case consultations across individuals and institutions with various experiences and cultures, and comparison between various practices. (shrink)