Search

Moral distress forms a major threat to the well-being of healthcare professionals, and is argued to negatively impact patient care. It is associated with emotions such as anger, frustration, guilt, and anxiety. In order to effectively deal with moral distress, the concept of moral resilience is introduced as the positive capacity of an individual to sustain or restore their integrity in response to moral adversity. Interventions are needed that foster moral resilience among healthcare professionals. Ethics consultation has been proposed as such an intervention. In this paper, we add to this proposition by discussing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) as a specific form of clinical ethics support that promotes moral resilience. We argue that MCD in general may contribute to the moral resilience of healthcare professionals as it promotes moral agency. In addition, we focus on three specific MCD reflection methods: the Dilemma Method, the Aristotelian moral inquiry into emotions, and CURA, a method consisting of four main steps: Concentrate, Unrush, Reflect, and Act. In practice, all three methods are used by nurse ethicists or by nurses who received training to facilitate reflection sessions with these methods. We maintain that these methods also have specific elements that promote moral resilience. However, the Dilemma Method fosters dealing well with tragedy, the latter two promote moral resilience by including attention to emotions as part of the reflection process. We will end with discussing the importance of future empirical research on the impact of MCD on moral resilience, and of comparing MCD with other interventions that seek to mitigate moral distress and promote moral resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This article presents a set of quality characteristics of clinical ethics support (CES) in the Netherlands. Methods: The quality characteristics were developed with a large group of stakeholders working with CES, participating in the Dutch Network for Clinical Ethics Support (NEON). Results: The quality characteristics concern the following domains: (1) goals of CES, (2) methods of CES, (3) competences of CES practitioners, and (4) implementation of CES. Conclusions: We discuss suggestions for how to use the quality characteristics, discuss some aspects that stand out about these quality characteristics, and reflect on the method and the status of the quality characteristics. The quality characteristics are meant as a heuristic instrument, helping CES practitioners to explore and improve the quality of CES in a health care organization, but at the same time they can be improved based on experiences during their application to CES practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In previous research on ethics case reflection (ECR) sessions about specific cases, healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care were clarifying their perspectives on the ethical issue to resolve their main concern of consolidating care. When perspectives were clarified, consequences in the team included ‘increased understanding’, ‘group strengthening’ and ‘decision grounding’. Additional analysis of the data was needed on conditions that could contribute to the quality of ECR sessions. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore conditions for clarifying perspectives during ECR sessions. Research design: Data were collected from observations and interviews and the results emerged from an inductive analysis using grounded theory. Participants and research context: Six observations during ECR sessions and 10 interviews were performed with healthcare professionals working in childhood cancer care and advanced paediatric homecare. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by a regional ethical review board. Participants were informed about their voluntary involvement and that they could withdraw their participation without explaining why. Findings: Two categories emerged: organizational enablers and barriers and team-related enablers and barriers. Organizational enablers and barriers included the following sub-categories: the timing of the ECR session, the structure during the ECR session and the climate during the ECR session. Sub-categories to team-related enablers and barriers were identified as space for inter-professional perspectives, varying levels of ethical skills and space for the patient’s and the family’s perspectives. Discussion: Space for inter-professional perspectives included the dominance of a particular perspective that can result from hierarchical positions. The medical perspective is relevant for understanding the child’s situation but should not dominate the ethical reflection. Conclusion: Conditions for ECR sessions have been explored and the new knowledge can be used when training facilitators as well as for those who organize/implement ECR sessions. Awareness of space for different perspectives, including the possible medical advantage over the nursing perspective, could reduce the somewhat unilateral attention and contribute to an inter-professionally shared reflection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Clinical ethics support, in particular Moral Case Deliberation, aims to support health care providers in ethically difficult situations. However, there is a lack of evaluation instruments regarding outcomes of clinical ethics support in general and regarding Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) in particular. There also is a lack of clarity and consensuses regarding which MCD outcomes are beneficial. In addition, MCD outcomes might be context-sensitive. Against this background, there is a need for a standardised outcome evaluation instrument that will be flexible enough to be tailored to the specific needs of local MCD groups but general enough to capture relevant MCD outcomes across multiple contexts. The aim of this study was to develop a multi-contextual evaluation instrument measuring health care providers' experiences and perceived importance of outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation. Methods A multi-item instrument for assessing outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) was constructed through an iterative process, founded on a literature review and modified through a multistep review by ethicists and health care providers. The instrument measures perceived importance of outcomes before and after MCD, as well as experienced outcomes during MCD and in daily work. A purposeful sample of 81 European participants contributed to a Delphi panel and content validity testing. The Delphi panel (n = 13), consisting of ethicists and ethics researchers, participated in three Delphi-rounds. Health care providers (n = 68) participated in the content validity testing through 'think-aloud' interviews and a method using Content Validity Index. Results The development process resulted in the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD), which consists of two sections, one to be completed before a participant's first MCD and the other after completing multiple MCDs. The instrument contains a few open-ended questions and 26 specific items with a corresponding rating/response scale representing various MCD outcomes. The items were categorised into the following six domains: Enhanced emotional support, Enhanced collaboration, Improved moral reflexivity, Improved moral attitude, Improvement on organizational level and Concrete results. Conclusions A tentative instrument has been developed that seems to cover main outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation. The next step will be to test the Euro-MCD in a field study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In the field of bioethics a trend can be noticed toward deliberative and collective forms of moral reflection among practitioners. Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) is an example of this development and currently introduced in an increasing number of health care organizations in the Netherlands, including elderly care. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the process of implementation of MCD focusing on the learning experiences of practitioners over time. The article is grounded in a naturalistic evaluation of the implementation of MCD in two elderly care institutions between 2006 and 2012. Methods included interviews, participant observations and focus groups. The results indicate that gaining experience with MCD brought about a learning process in which both the learning of competence for reflection and deliberation (e.g. an exploratory attitude) and experiencing the benefits (e.g. relief of moral distress) were key elements. We conclude that doing ethics is the best way to motivate practitioners to engage in moral deliberations on the work floor. Gaining practical experience should be explicitly stimulated bottom-up and facilitated top-down. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]