scholarly journals What healthcare teams find ethically difficult

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (8) ◽  
pp. 825-837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dara Rasoal ◽  
Annica Kihlgren ◽  
Inger James ◽  
Mia Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Next Of Kin ◽  
Life And Death ◽  
Healthcare Teams ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
Interprofessional Healthcare ◽  
Difficult Situations

Background: Ethically difficult situations are frequently encountered by healthcare professionals. Moral case deliberation is one form of clinical ethics support, which has the goal to support staff to manage ethical difficulties. However, little is known which difficult situations healthcare teams need to discuss. Aim: To explore which kinds of ethically difficult situations interprofessional healthcare teams raise during moral case deliberation. Research design: A series of 70 moral case deliberation sessions were audio-recorded in 10 Swedish workplaces. A descriptive, qualitative approach was applied, using thematic content analysis. Ethical considerations: An advisory statement specifying no objections to the study was provided from an Ethical Review Board, and consent to be recorded was assumed by virtue of participation in the moral case deliberation. Findings: Three themes emerged: powerlessness over managing difficult interactions with patients and next-of-kin, unease over unsafe and unequal care, and uncertainty over who should have power over care decisions. The powerlessness comprised feelings of insufficiency, difficulties to respond or manage patient’s/next-of-kin’s emotional needs or emotional outbursts and discouragement over motivating patients not taking responsibility for themselves. They could be uncertain over the patient’s autonomy, who should have power over life and death, disclosing the truth or how much power next-of-kin should have. Discussion: The findings suggest that the nature of the ethically difficult situations brought to moral case deliberations contained more relational-oriented ethics than principle-based ethics, were permeated by emotions and the uncertainties were pervaded by power aspects between stakeholders. Conclusion: MCD can be useful in understanding the connection between ethical issues and emotions from a team perspective.

Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork, Moral Action – Outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation in the Euro-MCD 2.0 For Evaluating Clinical Ethics Support

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 67-67
Author(s):  
Janine de Snoo-Trimp ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Moral Action ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Moral Competence ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
Difficult Situations

"Background: For Moral Case Deliberation (MCD), like any form of Clinical ethics support (CES), it is important to know whether it reaches its presumed goal of supporting healthcare professionals in their ethical challenges. Evaluation is needed to gain insight in the value of MCD. Therefore, the Euro-MCD instrument was developed to assess outcomes of MCD, and has now been revised. The aim of this presentation is to present the revised Instrument: the Euro-MCD 2.0. Methods: The revision process was an iterative dialogue in which field study findings were integrated with theoretical reflections and expert-input. Results: The Euro-MCD 2.0 has three domains: 1) Moral Competence, 2) Moral Teamwork and 3) Moral Action. Moral Competence includes items on moral sensitivity, analytical skills and a virtuous attitude, like ‘I speak up in ethically difficult situations’. Moral Teamwork refers to open dialogue and supportive relationships, for example ‘We feel secure to share emotions in ethically difficult situations’. Moral Action includes items about moral decision-making and responsible care, like ‘We are able to explain and justify our care towards patients and their families’. Discussion: The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter and more strongly substantiated by empirical data and theoretical reflections. At the conference, we will reflect on the revision process and the underlying foundations of the domains. The revised instrument helps to get insight in the MCD related outcomes for healthcare professionals in their daily practice. Our research can further improve implementation of MCD and contribute to the research field of evaluation of CES in general. "

It’s not all about moral reasoning: Understanding the content of Moral Case Deliberation

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Svantesson ◽  
Marit Silén ◽  
Inger James
Keyword(s):  
Moral Reasoning ◽  
Moral Distress ◽  
Evaluation Research ◽  
Human Interaction ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Difficult Patient ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
Outcome Criteria

Background: Moral Case Deliberation is one form of clinical ethics support described as a facilitator-led collective moral reasoning by healthcare professionals on a concrete moral question connected to their practice. Evaluation research is needed, but, as human interaction is difficult to standardise, there is a need to capture the content beyond moral reasoning. This allows for a better understanding of Moral Case Deliberation, which may contribute to further development of valid outcome criteria and stimulate the normative discussion of what Moral Case Deliberation should contain. Objective: To explore and compare the content beyond moral reasoning in the dialogue in Moral Case Deliberation at Swedish workplaces. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was applied for analysing audio-recordings of 70 periodic Moral Case Deliberation meetings at 10 Swedish workplaces. Moral Case Deliberation facilitators and various healthcare professions participated, with registered nurses comprising the majority. Ethical considerations: No objection to the study was made by an Ethical Review Board. After oral and written information was provided, consent to be recorded was assumed by virtue of participation. Findings: Other than ‘moral reasoning’ (median (md): 45% of the spoken time), the Moral Case Deliberations consisted of ‘reflections on the psychosocial work environment’ to a varying extent (md: 29%). Additional content comprised ‘assumptions about the patient’s psychosocial situation’ (md: 6%), ‘facts about the patient’s situation’ (md: 5%), ‘concrete problem-solving’ (md: 6%) and ‘process’ (md: 3%). Conclusion: The findings suggest that a restorative function of staff’s wellbeing in Moral Case Deliberation is needed, as this might contribute to good patient care. This supports outcome criteria of improved emotional support, which may include relief of moral distress. However, facilitators need a strategy for how to proceed from the participants’ own emotional needs and to develop the use of their emotional knowing to focus on the ethically difficult patient situation.

Moral case deliberation

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Y B Tan ◽  
Bastiaan C ter Meulen ◽  
Albert Molewijk ◽  
Guy Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Support Services ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
Moral Damage ◽  
Dilemma Method

Ethical dilemmas in general are characterised by a choice between two mutually excluding options neither of which is satisfactory, because there always will be a form of moral damage. Within the context of medicine several ethics support services have been developed to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethical dilemmas, including moral case deliberation. In this article, we describe how moral case deliberation works in daily practice, illustrated with a case example from the neurology ward. The article is meant as an introduction to moral case deliberation according to the dilemma method. We show its relevance to the clinic and the context needed to put it into practice.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation - the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD)

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Svantesson ◽  
Jan Karlsson ◽  
Pierre Boitte ◽  
Jan Schildman ◽  
Linda Dauwerse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Ethics ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Evaluation Instrument ◽  
Clinical Ethics Support ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case

Aims and harvest of moral case deliberation

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 617-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Froukje C Weidema ◽  
Bert AC Molewijk ◽  
Frans Kamsteeg ◽  
Guy AM Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Learning Processes ◽  
Nursing Profession ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Management Tools ◽  
Traditional Management ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Responsive Evaluation ◽  
Team Cooperation ◽  
Moral Case

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.

How to Train and Assess the Quality of Facilitators for Moral Case Deliberation? Experiences with and Evaluation of Self-Reflection and Observation Forms for Facilitators of Moral Case Deliberation

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 170-170
Author(s):  
Margreet Stolper ◽  
◽  
Bert Molewijk ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Health ◽  
Learning Goals ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Moral Inquiry ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
Personal Learning ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Moral Case

"In Europe, Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) has been well-known and established as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) and implemented in many international (health care) institutions. Since 2007 Amsterdam UMC organizes training for professionals to become a facilitator of MCD. To support and asses the development of those future facilitators MCD, an instrument has been developed which can be used by both trainees and trainers. The instrument consists of a self-reflection form and an observation form. Both forms are almost identical and contain a part of open questions reflecting upon the personal learning goals of the trainee and a part of 56 closed questions. The part of closed questions contains concrete descriptions of preferred skills and attitude of the MCD facilitator trainee, related to MCD in general and the specific steps of the Dilemma method and the Socratic Dialogue in particular. Special attention is being paid to concrete actions for fostering a dialogue and deepening the moral inquiry. The instrument can also be used by trained and more experienced facilitators of MCD to reflect upon their acquired skills and attitude, and indirectly on the quality of CES they provide. In this presentation we will present the instrument and share our experiences in using the two forms in order to train and assess (the quality of) facilitators of MCD. Furthermore, we will present preliminary results of the analysis of more than 1200 forms collected in the past decade from trainings on national and international level. "

scholarly journals Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: a Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals’ priorities

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 608-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Svantesson ◽  
Janine C de Snoo-Trimp ◽  
Göril Ursin ◽  
Henrica CW de Vet ◽  
Berit S Brinchmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Emotional Support ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Field Survey ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Moral Attitude ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Outcome Instrument ◽  
The Future ◽  
Moral Case

BackgroundThere is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument (Euro-MCD) instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation.MethodsA North European field survey among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used.ResultsAll outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%–97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. ‘Better interactions with patient/family’ emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents.ConclusionsThe findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as moral reflexivity and moral attitude outcomes, should still be included. In the future, a combination of empirical findings (practice) and normative reflection (theories) will contribute to the revision of the instrument.

Evaluation and perceived results of moral case deliberation

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 870-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rien MJPA Janssens ◽  
Ezra van Zadelhoff ◽  
Ger van Loo ◽  
Guy AM Widdershoven ◽  
Bert AC Molewijk
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Aged Care ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Team Leaders ◽  
Healthcare Organizations ◽  
Large Organization ◽  
Moral Case

Background: Moral case deliberation is increasingly becoming part of various Dutch healthcare organizations. Although some evaluation studies of moral case deliberation have been carried out, research into the results of moral case deliberation within aged care is scarce. Research questions: How did participants evaluate moral case deliberation? What has moral case deliberation brought to them? What has moral case deliberation contributed to care practice? Should moral case deliberation be further implemented and, if so, how? Research design: Quantitative analysis of a questionnaire study among participants of moral case deliberation, both caregivers and team leaders. Qualitative analysis of written answers to open questions, interview study and focus group meetings among caregivers and team leaders. Participants and research context: Caregivers and team leaders in a large organization for aged care in the Netherlands. A total of 61 moral case deliberation sessions, carried out on 16 care locations belonging to the organization, were evaluated and perceived results were assessed. Ethical considerations: Participants gave informed consent and anonymity was guaranteed. In the Netherlands, the law does not prescribe independent ethical review by an Institutional Review Board for this kind of research among healthcare professionals. Findings: Moral case deliberation was evaluated positively by the participants. Content and atmosphere of moral case deliberation received high scores, while organizational issues regarding the moral case deliberation sessions scored lower and merit further attention. Respondents indicated that moral case deliberation has the potential to contribute to care practice as relationships among team members improve, more openness is experienced and more understanding for different perspectives is fostered. If moral case deliberation is to be successfully implemented, top-down approaches should go hand in hand with bottom-up approaches. Conclusion: The relevance of moral case deliberation for care practice received wide acknowledgement from the respondents. It can contribute to the team’s cohesion as mutual understanding for one another’s views is fostered. If implemented well, moral case deliberation has the potential to improve care, according to the respondents.

Moral Challenges of Ethics Support Staff. Developing a Moral Compass for Facilitators of Moral Case Deliberation

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 115-116
Author(s):  
Wieke Ligtenberg ◽  
◽  
Margreet Stolper ◽  
Bert Molewijk ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Support Staff ◽  
Moral Case Deliberation ◽  
Moral Compass ◽  
Ethics Support ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
Moral Competency ◽  
Preliminary Version ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Normative Considerations ◽  
Share Information

"Ethics support staff often help others to deal with moral challenges. However, they themselves can also experience moral challenges when practicing ethics support. Facilitators of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) sometimes for example experience ethical questions when it comes to (breaking) confidentiality. Facilitators might find themselves compelled to intervene or act upon things they hear or see whilst facilitating a MCD. For example, a MCD facilitator finds out that a participant does something illegal. Or, what to do if a MCD facilitator is asked to inform the Inspectorate about details of a MCD? When is a facilitator allowed or obligated to break confidentiality and share information with others? How to make such a decision? And, if allowed to break confidentiality, how to do this in a morally sound way? Currently there are no moral guidelines on how to act upon these questions. We conducted empirical research that explores moral challenges of MCD facilitators related to confidentiality and develops a moral compass which provides directions to approach these challenges. Data collection consists of three complementary methods: * analyses of 3 a 4 audiotaped and transcribed MCD sessions about how and when to break confidentiality; * in-depth interviews about the topic; * focus group to validate the findings and co-create a moral compass. In our presentation, we will reflect upon both the theoretical and normative considerations concerning confidentiality in ethics support and the empirical results of this study. Furthermore, we will present a preliminary version of a moral compass in order to strengthen the moral competency of MCD facilitators. "

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document