Two Years of Ethics Reflection Groups About the Use of Coercion. Changes Over Time in Employees’ Normative Attitudes Regarding the Use of Coercion, User Involvement, Team Cooperation and the Handling of Disagreement
Abstract Background: Research on the impact of ethics reflection groups (ERG) or moral case deliberations (MCD) is complex and scarce. Within a larger study, ERG has been used as an intervention for stimulating critical ethical reflection and improved team cooperation while observing changes over time.Research question: Are there – during and after two years of ERGs - changes over time regarding employees’ normative attitudes regarding the use of coercion and how employees perceive user involvement, team cooperation and the handling of disagreement in teams?Methods: Repeated cross-sectional survey to multidisciplinary employees at seven wards within three Norwegian mental health care institutions (T0-T1-T2). Changes in normative attitudes over time were estimated using linear mixed models.Results: In total, 817 surveys (from employees that did and did not participate in ERG) were included in the analyses. Of these, 7.6 % (N=62) responded at all three points in time, 15.5% (N=127) at two points, and 76.8 % (N= 628) once. On average, over time, respondents who participated in ERG agreed less that coercion can be seen a form of care or security. ERG participants more often reported that they involved users and that they handled disagreement within the team constructively. Furthermore, more frequent ERG participation was associated with a more critical attitude towards coercion and higher scores for user involvement, the coercion competence of the team and the constructive handling of disagreement within their teams.Conclusions: Structural ERGs or MCDs seem to contribute to employees reporting a more critical attitude towards coercion, more user involvement around coercion and a more constructive handling of disagreement. Differences were generally small in absolute terms possibly due to the low amount of longitudinal data and the relative low frequency of ERG’s during the two years. Studying changes over time in clinical practice and trying to find a relationship between CES interventions and CES outcomes is difficult yet important and needs to be further developed in future CES evaluation studies. This explorative quantitative study may be a first step from qualitative evidence towards more robust quantitative evidence of the contribution of CES to clinical practice and quality of care.