Needs assessment for providing clinical ethics consultation services in Tehran

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariba Asghari ◽  
Alireza Parsapoor ◽  
Khorshid Vaskooi ◽  
Saeedeh Saeedi Tehrani
Folia Medica ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silviya S. Aleksandrova-Yankulovska

Abstract Background: Bioethics and clinical ethics emerged from the classical medical ethics in the 1970s of the 20th century. Both fields are new for the Bulgarian academic tradition. Aim: The aims of this paper were to demarcate the subject fields of medical ethics, bioethics, and clinical ethics, to present the developments in the field of medical ethics in Bulgaria, to delineate the obstacles to effective ethics education of medical professionals, and to present the results of the application of an adapted bottom-up methodology for clinical ethics consultation in several clinical units in Bulgaria. Materials and methods: Extended literature review and application of an adapted METAP methodology for clinical ethics consultation in six clinical units in the Northern Bulgaria between May 2013 and December 2014. Results: Teaching of medical ethics in Bulgaria was introduced in the 1990s and still stands mainly as theoretical expertise without sufficient dilemma training in clinical settings. Earlier studies revealed need of clinical ethics consultation services in our country. METAP methodology was applied in 69 ethics meetings. In 31.9% of them non-medical considerations affected the choice of treatment and 34.8% resulted in reaching consensus between the team and the patient. Participants’ opinion about the meetings was highly positive with 87.7% overall satisfaction. Conclusion: Development of bioethics in Bulgaria follows recent worldwide trends. Several ideas could be applied towards increasing the effectiveness of ethics education. Results of the ethics meetings lead to the conclusion that it is a successful and well accepted approach for clinical ethics consultation with a potential for wider introduction in our medical practice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen Mary Gallagher ◽  
Megan Ball Neel ◽  
Claudia R. Sotomayor

<div>Background: With growing importance of clinical ethics in daily nursing practice, and the increasing occurrence and utilization of ethics consultation nationwide, awareness about the motives behind consults is vital to enhancing patient care.</div><div>Aim: to determine the predominant requests for ethics consultation from nurses in a cancer setting. </div><div>Design: This is a retrospective data review of the ethics consultations recorded in the clinical ethics consultation database. The data reviewed consist of the ethics consults requested by nurses from records in the database of consultations conducted from January 1, 2008 through July 31, 2013. </div><div>Findings: The predominant reason for requesting an ethics consult was the level of appropriate care with a total of 27 consults (28%). Within this topic, there were ten consults about the shift from curative care to palliative care, 13 about code status, 2 about general appropriate level of care and 2 regarding hospice.</div><div>Discussion: The data show that the nurses at this hospital had similar concerns as other nurses in the literature in that there were several requests for concerns regarding code status, informed consent, and appropriate treatment, including the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies.</div><div>Conclusion: Improving access to ethics consultation services access and the ethics education for nursing staff are necessary steps to improve confidence among them to engage more often with clinical ethics consultation. </div><div> </div>


2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Véronique Fournier ◽  
Eirini Rari ◽  
Reidun Førde ◽  
Gerald Neitzke ◽  
Renzo Pegoraro ◽  
...  

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 601-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia L Bartlett ◽  
Stuart G Finder

Background: An ongoing challenge for clinical ethics consultation is learning how colleagues in other healthcare professions understand, make use of, and evaluate clinical ethics consultation services. Aim: In pursuing such knowledge as part of clinical ethics consultation service quality assessment, clinical ethics consultation services can learn important information about the issues and concerns that prompt colleagues to request ethics consultation. Such knowledge allows for greater outreach, education, and responsiveness by clinical ethics consultation services to the concerns of clinician colleagues. Design: This quality assessment project explores consultation requests and follow-up questionnaire responses voluntarily submitted from nurses who requested clinical ethics consultation. We present qualitative data analyzed using content analysis and constant comparison methods to identify key concerns that prompted requests as well as common themes among nurse requestors’ evaluations of what was most important in clinical ethics consultations. Participants and context: A total of 41 nurses requesting clinical ethics consultation and 15 who returned the follow-up questionnaire. Ethical considerations: Our Office of Research Compliance and Quality Improvement determined that our project was not considered human subjects research and so did not require institutional review board approval or exemption. However, efforts were made to avoid any sense of coercion and all data were de-identified prior to analysis. Findings: Our analysis revealed six main categories of issues that prompted nurses’ requests for ethics consultation, as well as unifying themes around nurses’ experiences, advocacy, and family support while caring for patients in the intersections of patients, families, and physicians. Discussion: The insights gained from analyzing nurses’ requests for and responses to clinical ethics consultation may serve as a resource for clinical ethics consultation services seeking to identify, respond to, and educate regarding issues of importance to nurse colleagues and may be a resource for nursing administrators and leadership seeking to identify and address common ethical issues nurses face. Conclusion: Ongoing work on clinical ethics consultation service quality improvement and engagement with our nursing colleagues about their concerns prompting—and their evaluations of—clinical ethics consultation are necessary.


1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-357
Author(s):  
Edward Rudin

Fox, McGee, and Caplan's “Paradigms for Clinical Ethics Consultation Practice”, in the Summer 1998 issue of CQ, evoked memories and an image.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-79
Author(s):  
Aleksandra E. Olszewski ◽  
Maya Scott ◽  
Arika Patneaude ◽  
Elliott M. Weiss ◽  
Aaron Wightman

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Rasmussen

A major obstacle to broad support of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) is suspicion regarding the nature of the moral expertise it claims to offer. The suspicion seems to be confirmed when the field fails to make its moral expertise explicit. In this vacuum, critics suggest the following:(1)Clinical ethics consultation's legitimacy depends on its ability to offer an expertise in moral matters.(2)Expertise in moral matters is knowledge of a singular moral truth which applies to everyone.(3)The claim that a clinical ethics consultant can offer knowledge of a singular moral truth in virtue of her professional training is absurd, false, or gravely immoral.Therefore,(4)The field is illegitimate.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document