Evaluating clinical ethics support in mental healthcare

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 452-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marit Helene Hem ◽  
Reidar Pedersen ◽  
Reidun Norvoll ◽  
Bert Molewijk

A systematic literature review on evaluation of clinical ethics support services in mental healthcare is presented and discussed. The focus was on (a) forms of clinical ethics support services, (b) evaluation of clinical ethics support services, (c) contexts and participants and (d) results. Five studies were included. The ethics support activities described were moral case deliberations and ethics rounds. Different qualitative and quantitative research methods were utilized. The results show that (a) participants felt that they gained an increased insight into moral issues through systematic reflection; (b) there was improved cooperation among multidisciplinary team members; (c) it was uncertain whether clinical ethics support services led to better patient care; (d) the issue of patient and client participation is complex; and (e) the implementation process is challenging. Clinical ethics support services have mainly been studied through the experiences of the participating facilitators and healthcare professionals. Hence, there is limited knowledge of whether and how various types of clinical ethics support services influence the quality of care and how patients and relatives may evaluate clinical ethics support services. Based on the six excluded ‘grey zone articles’, in which there was an implicit focus on ethics reflection, other ways of working with ethical reflection in practice are discussed. Implementing and evaluating clinical ethics support services as approaches to clinical ethics support that are more integrated into the development of good practice are in focus. In order to meet some of the shortcomings of the field of clinical ethics support services, a research project that aims to strengthen ethics support in the mental health services, including patients’ and caregivers’ views on ethical challenges, is presented.

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANA BOROVEČKI ◽  
KSENIJA MAKAR-AUS̆PERGER ◽  
IGOR FRANCETIĆ ◽  
SANJA BABIĆ-BOSNAC ◽  
BERT GORDIJN ◽  
...  

Croatia is a transitional society in that it is a country emerging from a socialist command economy toward a market-based economy with ensuing structural changes of a social and political nature—some extending into the healthcare system. A legacy from our past is that, until now, Croatian healthcare institutions have had no real experience with clinical ethics support services. When clinical cases arise presenting complex ethical dilemmas in treatment options, the challenges presented to the medical team are substantial. The case described below recently occurred on a ward in a university hospital in Croatia. An unexpected request from the patient’s parents created a number of issues that needed to be addressed by the medical team, which was made more difficult by the lack of clinical ethics support services. Such cases press the question currently being debated as to what type of ethics support services would be suitable for Croatia and why.


2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (12) ◽  
pp. 805-809
Author(s):  
Dagmar Schmitz ◽  
Dominik Groß ◽  
Charlotte Frierson ◽  
Gerrit A Schubert ◽  
Henna Schulze-Steinen ◽  
...  

Clinical ethics support (CES) services are experiencing a phase of flourishing and of growing recognition. At the same time, however, the expectations regarding the acceptance and the integration of traditional CES services into clinical processes are not met. Ethics rounds as an additional instrument or as an alternative to traditional clinical ethics support strategies might have the potential to address both deficits. By implementing ethics rounds, we were able to better address the needs of the clinical sections and to develop a more comprehensive account of ethics quality in our hospital, which covers the level of decisions and actions, and also the level of systems and processes and aspects of ethical leadership.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 838-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joschka Haltaufderheide ◽  
Stephan Nadolny ◽  
Marjolein Gysels ◽  
Claudia Bausewein ◽  
Jochen Vollmann ◽  
...  

Background: Clinical ethics support services have been advocated in recent decades. In clinical practice, clinical ethics support services are often requested for difficult decisions near the end of life. However, their contribution to improving healthcare has been questioned and demands for evaluation have been put forward. Research indicates that there are considerable challenges associated with defining adequate outcomes for clinical ethics support services. In this systematic review, we report findings of qualitative studies and surveys, which have been conducted to evaluate clinical ethics support services near the end of life. Methods: Electronic databases and other sources were queried from 1970 to May 2018. Two authors screened studies independently. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For each arm of the review, an individual synthesis was performed. Prospero ID: CRD42016036241. Ethical Considerations: Ethical approval is not needed as it is a systematic review of published literature. Results: In all, 2088 hits on surveys and 2786 on qualitative studies were found. After screening, nine surveys and four qualitative studies were included. Survey studies report overall positive findings using a very wide and heterogeneous range of outcomes. Negative results were reported only occasionally. However, methodological quality and conceptual justification of used outcomes was often weak and limits generalizability of results. Conclusion: Evidence points to positive outcomes of clinical ethics support services. However, methodological quality needs to be improved. Further qualitative or mixed-method research on evaluating clinical ethics support services may contribute to the development of evaluating outcomes of clinical ethics support services by means of broaden the range of appropriate (process-oriented) outcomes of (different types of) clinical ethics support services.


Bioethics ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 237-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Wäscher ◽  
Sabine Salloch ◽  
Peter Ritter ◽  
Jochen Vollmann ◽  
Jan Schildmann

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document