Establishing Clinical Ethics Committees in Primary Care: A Study from Norwegian Municipal Care

Would primary care services benefit from the aid of a clinical ethics committee (CEC)? The implementation of CECs in primary care in four Norwegian municipalities was supported and their activities followed for 2.5 years. In this study, the CECs’ structure and activities are described, with special emphasis on what characterizes the cases they have discussed. In total, the four CECs discussed 54 cases from primary care services, with the four most common topics being patient autonomy, competence and coercion; professionalism; cooperation and disagreement with next of kin; and priority setting, resource use and quality. Nursing homes and home care were the primary care services most often involved. Next of kin were present in 10 case deliberations, whereas patients were never present. The investigation indicates that it might be feasible for new CECs to attain a high level of activity including case deliberations within the time frame. It also confirms that significant, characteristic and complex moral problems arise in primary care services.

Living bioethics, clinical ethics committees and children's consent to heart surgery

This discussion paper considers how seldom recognised theories influence clinical ethics committees. A companion paper examined four major theories in social science: positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism, which can encourage legalistic ethics theories or practical living bioethics, which aims for theory–practice congruence. This paper develops the legalistic or living bioethics themes by relating the four theories to clinical ethics committee members’ reported aims and practices and approaches towards efficiency, power, intimidation, justice, equality and children’s interests and rights. Different approaches to framing ethical questions are also considered. Being aware of the four theories’ influence can help when seeking to understand and possibly change clinical ethics committee routines. The paper is not a research report but is informed by a recent study in two London paediatric cardiac units. Forty-five practitioners and related experts were interviewed, including eight members of ethics committees, about the work of informing, preparing and supporting families during the extended process of consent to children’s elective heart surgery. The mosaic of multidisciplinary teamwork is reported in a series of papers about each profession, including this one on bioethics and law and clinical ethics committees’ influence on clinical practice. The qualitative social research was funded by the British Heart Foundation, in order that more may be known about the perioperative views and needs of all concerned. Questions included how disputes can be avoided, how high ethical standards and respectful cooperation between staff and families can be encouraged, and how minors’ consent or refusal may be respected, with the support of clinical ethics committees.

Clinical ethics committees in nursing homes: what good can they do? Analysis of a single case consultation

Background: Ought nursing homes to establish clinical ethics committees (CECs)? An answer to this question must begin with an understanding of how a clinical ethics committee might be beneficial in a nursing home context – to patients, next of kin, professionals, managers, and the institution. With the present article, we aim to contribute to such an understanding. Aim: We ask, in which ways can clinical ethics committees be helpful to stakeholders in a nursing home context? We describe in depth a clinical ethics committee case consultation deemed successful by stakeholders, then reflect on how it was helpful. Research design: Case study using the clinical ethics committee’s written case report and self-evaluation form, and two research interviews, as data. Participants and research context: The nursing home’s ward manager and the patient’s son participated in research interviews. Ethical considerations: Data were collected as part of an implementation study. Clinical ethics committee members and interviewed stakeholders consented to study participation, and also gave specific approval for the publication of the present article. Findings/results: Six different roles played by the clinical ethics committee in the case consultation are described: analyst, advisor, support, moderator, builder of consensus and trust, and disseminator. Discussion: The case study indicates that clinical ethics committees might sometimes be of help to stakeholders in moral challenges in nursing homes. Conclusions: Demanding moral challenges arise in the nursing home setting. More research is needed to examine whether clinical ethics committees might be suitable as ethics support structures in nursing homes and community care.

Applying ethical dimensions in clinical dilemmas

AimsCentral and North West London's Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) offers a non-judgmental space to discuss ethical concerns and challenges and provide ethical guidance. This project aims to publicise these ethical dilemmas and guidance to inform decision making trust-wide.BackgroundA Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) encompasses a diverse range of figures, from psychiatrists and general practitioners to members of the clergy and experts by experience. The CEC in Central and North West London have been meeting regularly since 2003 to provide ethical assistance to a wide range of medical, surgical and psychiatric teams. Complex ethical cases are presented by the treating team, allowing a subsequent discussion of the ethical theories and frameworks within the case with the committee members. This synthesis of information can then assist the treating team in the shaping of ethical based solutions to their dilemmas.The committee wished to encourage ethical based clinical thinking within the trust and enable others to learn from the valuable insights already provided by the CEC over the years.MethodCase notes, recorded from the last 17 years of meetings of the Clinical Ethics Committee were reviewed. 98 cases were identified between 2003-2019. The contemporaneous case reports were then anonymised and indexed into one easy to use file. This file was published on the local intranet and publicised to staff.ResultThe cases were compiled into a PDF document which is available for all staff members within the trust on the intranet. This resource is open to all clinical staff, and serves the dual purpose of encouraging ethical-based thinking and also promoting the ethics committee to those who might be in need of assistance.ConclusionClinical decisions can be complex and nuanced, often complicated by multiple viewpoints and ways of thinking. The database demonstrates the use of ethical dimensions by the ethics committee to inform decision making in a series of varied clinical and management dilemmas. The project required careful consideration around preservation of confidentiality as well as overcoming the logistical barriers of trust-wide dissemination. The result is a document that will allow ethical based decision-making to be embedded into everyday practice.

Challenging misconceptions about clinical ethics support during COVID-19 and beyond: a legal update and future considerations

The pace of change and, indeed, the sheer number of clinical ethics committees (not to be confused with research ethics committees) has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Committees were formed to support healthcare professionals and to operationalise, interpret and compensate for gaps in national and professional guidance. But as the role of clinical ethics support becomes more prominent and visible, it becomes ever more important to address gaps in the support structure and misconceptions as to role and remit. The recent case of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v MX, FX and X ([2020] EWHC 1958 (Fam), [21]–[23] and [58]) has highlighted the importance of patient/family representation at clinical ethics committee meetings. The court viewed these meetings as making decisions about such treatment. We argue that this misunderstands the role of ethics support, with treatment decisions remaining with the clinical team and those providing their consent. The considered review by clinical ethics committees of the moral issues surrounding complex treatment decisions is not a matter of determining a single ethical course of action. In this article, we consider current legal understandings of clinical ethics committees, explore current concepts of ethics support and suggest how they may evolve, considering the various mechanisms of the inclusion of patients and their representatives in ethics meetings which is not standard in the UK.

Prospective single-centre clinical observational study on electronically monitored medication non-adherence, its psychosocial risk factors and lifestyle behaviours after heart transplantation: a study protocol

IntroductionIn heart transplant recipients (HTRs), non-adherence (NA) to immunosuppressive (IS) medication and to recommended lifestyle behaviours are a common phenomenon and associated with higher risk of allograft rejection, organ loss and mortality. Risk factors for NA are highly diverse and still insufficiently researched. Precise measures of NA and an accurate understanding of its aetiology are of undisputable importance to detect patients at risk and intervene accordingly. The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy and concordance of different measures for NA as well as to determine potential risk factors.Methods and analysisThis is a single-centre prospective observational trial. HTRs who are at least aged 18 are no less than 6 months post-transplant and receive tacrolimus (Prograf or Advagraf), cyclosporine (Sandimmun) or everolimus (Certican) as their prescribed IS medication are eligible for participation. We only include patients during the phase of medication implementation. At study enrolment, we assess depression, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, social support, attachment, experiences and attitudes towards IS medication, emotional responses after transplantation, satisfaction with information about IS medication and perceptions and beliefs about medications. We further ask patients to rate their lifestyle behaviours concerning alcohol, smoking, diet, physical activity, sun protection and appointment keeping via questionnaires. Three different measurement methods for NA are applied at T0: self-reports, physician’s estimates and IS trough levels. NA is monitored prospectively using an electronic multicompartment pillbox (MEMS, VAICA) over a 3-month period. Meanwhile, participants receive phone calls every second week to obtain additional self-reports, resulting in a total of seven measurement points.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Clinical Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Erlangen (Friedrich-Alexander-University, Erlangen-Nürnberg). Written informed consent is attained from all participants. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberDRKS00020496.

An introduction to clinical ethics in psychiatry

SUMMARYThe Royal College of Psychiatrists’ continuing professional development (CPD) module on clinical ethics in psychiatry by Pearce & Tan describes some common ethical dilemmas in psychiatric practice and the work of clinical ethics committees in analysing these dilemmas. In this article we build upon their work and offer additional exploration of the nature of ethical dilemmas in psychiatry. We also build upon the models of reasoning that are described in the module and suggest ways for psychiatrists to think about ethical dilemmas when a clinical ethics committee is not available.

Reasons for not achieving control: therapeutic inertia in monitoring hypertension in primary care.

Background: Physicians’ failure to change/adjust treatments after learning of poor follow-up control in hypertensive patients can be defined as clinical inertia, a frequent and serious problem that affects health care activity at the international level. Method: A total of 153 hypertensive patients under 80 years of age who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and had received ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for 24 hours as the follow-up method to evaluate their level of blood pressure (BP) control. One year after data collection, the included patients were studied retrospectively, and the changes introduced by their physicians were checked based on their results. Results: Sixty-five hypertensive patients (42.5%) out of the total sample (153) were classified as poorly controlled; of these, 36 were subject to therapeutic inertia (55%). Of the 29 hypertensive patients who did undergo treatment adjustment (45%), 15 (52%) underwent adjustment before the month of notification. Conclusion: Therapeutic inertia in the care of hypertensive patients continues to be a common problem in primary care. Young hypertensive patients of male sex, smokers and nondiabetic patients were the most affected groups. Test record: Registered retrospectively by the Clinical Ethics Committee of the José María Morales Meseguer University Hospital with the code EST: 62/17