Article Text
Abstract
Background Case consultation performed by clinical ethics committees (CECs) is a complex activity which should be evaluated. Several evaluation studies have reported stakeholder satisfaction in single institutions. The present study was conducted nationwide and compares clinicians’ evaluations on a range of aspects with the CEC’s own evaluation.
Methods Prospective questionnaire study involving case consultations at 19 Norwegian CECs for 1 year, where consultations were evaluated by CECs and clinicians who had participated.
Results Evaluations of 64 case consultations were received. Cases were complex with multiple ethical problems intertwined. Clinicians rated the average CEC consult highly, being both satisfied with the process and perceiving it to be useful across a number of aspects. CEC evaluations corresponded well with those of clinicians in a large majority of cases. Having next of kin/patients present was experienced as predominantly positive, though practised by only half of the CECs. The educational function of the consult was evaluated more positively when the CEC used a systematic deliberation method.
Conclusions CEC case consultation was found to be a useful service. The study is also a favourable evaluation of the Norwegian CEC system, implying that it is feasible to implement well-functioning CECs on a large scale. There are good reasons to involve the stakeholders in the consultations as a main rule.
- clinical ethics
- ethics committees/consultation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors All authors contributed to design and analysis, and to revision of the text. MM had main responsibility for data collection and analysis, and wrote the first draft. All authors approved of the final version.
Funding MM, RP and RF’s work was funded by a grant from the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval The study was approved by the Data Protection Official at the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (ref. 48902). In order to preserve the anonymity of patients and other stakeholders, the questionnaires contained no questions that could identify individuals.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Development of clinical ethics services in the UK: a national survey
- The quality of bioethics debate: implications for clinical ethics committees
- Consultation activities of clinical ethics committees in the United Kingdom: an empirical study and wake-up call
- Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review
- Implementing clinical ethics in German hospitals: content, didactics and evaluation of a nationwide postgraduate training programme
- Clinical ethics support services in the UK: an investigation of the current provision of ethics support to health professionals in the UK
- Evolution of hospital clinical ethics committees in Canada
- Snapshots of five clinical ethics committees in the UK
- Challenging misconceptions about clinical ethics support during COVID-19 and beyond: a legal update and future considerations
- What is the role of clinical ethics support in the era of e-medicine?