Search

Background: Moral case deliberation is a form of clinical ethics support to help healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. There is a lack of evidence about what outcomes healthcare professionals experience in daily practice after moral case deliberations. The Euro-MCD Instrument was developed to measure outcomes, based on the literature, a Delphi panel, and content validity testing. To examine relevance of items and adequateness of domains, a field study is needed. Aim: To describe experienced outcomes after participating in a series of moral case deliberations, both during sessions and in daily practice, and to explore correlations between items to further validate the Euro-MCD Instrument. Methods: In Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway, healthcare institutions that planned a series of moral case deliberations were invited. Closed responses were quantitatively analyzed. The factor structure of the instrument was tested using exploratory factor analyses. Ethical considerations: The study was approved in Sweden by a review board. In Norway and the Netherlands, data services and review boards were informed about the study. Results: The Euro-MCD Instrument was completed by 443 and 247 healthcare professionals after four and eight moral case deliberations, respectively. They experienced especially outcomes related to a better collaboration with co-workers and outcomes about individual moral reflexivity and attitude, both during sessions and in daily practice. Outcomes were experienced to a higher extent during sessions than in daily practice. The factor structure revealed four domains of outcomes, which did not confirm the six Euro-MCD domains. Conclusion: Field-testing the Euro-MCD Instrument showed the most frequently experienced outcomes and which outcomes correlated with each other. When revising the instrument, domains should be reconsidered, combined with theory about underlying concepts. In the future, a feasible and valid instrument will be presented to get insight into how moral case deliberation supports and improves healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although moral case deliberation (MCD) is evaluated positively as a form of clinical ethics support (CES), it has limitations. To address these limitations our research objective was to develop a thematic CES tool. In order to assess the philosophical characteristics of a CES tool based on MCDs, we drew on hermeneutic ethics and pragmatism. We distinguished four core characteristics of a CES tool: (a) focusing on an actual situation that is experienced as morally challenging by the user; (b) stimulating moral inquiry into the moral concepts, questions and routines in the lived experience of the CES tool user; (c) stimulating moral learning by exploring other perspectives; and (d) incorporating contextual details. We provide an example of a CES tool developed for moral dilemmas over client autonomy. Our article ends with some reflections on the normativity of the CES tool, other application areas and the importance of evaluation studies of CES tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There has been little attention paid to research on the outcomes of clinical ethics support (CES) or critical reflection on what constitutes a good CES outcome. Understanding how CES users perceive the importance of CES outcomes can contribute to a better understanding, use of and normative reflection on CES outcomes. Objective To describe the perceptions of Dutch healthcare professionals on important outcomes of moral case deliberation (MCD), prior to MCD participation, and to compare results between respondents. Methods This mixed-methods study used both the Euro-MCD instrument and semi-structured interviews. Healthcare professionals who were about to implement MCD were recruited from nursing homes, hospitals, psychiatry and mentally disabled care institutions. Results 331 healthcare professionals completed the Euro-MCD instrument, 13 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The outcomes perceived as most important were 'more open communication', 'better mutual understanding', 'concrete actions', 'see the situation from different perspectives', 'consensus on how to manage the situation' and 'find more courses of action'. Interviewees also perceived improving quality of care, professionalism and the organization as important. Women, nurses, managers and professionals in mentally disabled care rated outcomes more highly than other respondents. Conclusions Dutch healthcare professionals perceived the MCD outcomes related to collaboration as most important. The empirical findings can contribute to shared ownership of MCD and a more specific use of MCD in different contexts. They can inform international comparative research on different CES types and contribute to normative discussions concerning CES outcomes. Future studies should reflect upon important MCD outcomes after having experienced MCD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current process towards formalization within evaluation research, in particular the use of pre-set standards and the focus on predefined outcomes, implies a shift of ownership from the people who are actually involved in real clinical ethics support services (CESS) in a specific context to external stakeholders who increasingly gain a say in what 'good CESS' should look like. The question is whether this does justice to the insights and needs of those who are directly involved in actual CESS practices, be it as receivers or providers. We maintain that those actually involved in concrete CESS practices should also be involved in its evaluation, not only as respondents, but also in setting the agenda of the evaluation process and in articulating the criteria by which CESS is evaluated. Therefore, we propose a participatory approach to CESS evaluation. It focuses on (1) the concrete contexts in which CESS takes place, (2) reflective and dialogical learning processes, and (3) how to be democratic and inclusive. In particular, this approach to CESS evaluation is akin to realist evaluation, dialogical evaluation, and responsive evaluation. An example of a participatory approach to evaluating CESS is presented and some critical issues concerning this approach are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The design and implementation of clinical ethics support is attracting increasing attention. Often, the characteristics and aims of clinical ethics support are translated into practice in a top-down, programmatic manner. These characteristics and aims then remain a constant feature of the clinical ethics support functions within the organisation. We argue that the characteristics of clinical ethics support should be reflected in the implementation strategy. Inspired by dialogical, pragmatic and hermeneutic perspectives on clinical ethics support in general and moral case deliberation in particular, we argue for a dialogical approach to implementing clinical ethics support, based on open, ongoing discussion with healthcare professionals about how they conceive (the aims of) clinical ethics support. Based on research and experience with various moral case deliberation implementation projects in mental healthcare, we present a theoretical framework for dialogical implementation and heuristic guidelines for implementing moral case deliberation in mental healthcare, which take into account the dialogical characteristics of moral case deliberation and some specific features of mental healthcare. [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]

To describe and reflect on the development process of GenderJourney: an ethics support tool that seeks to foster (dialogue and reflection on) shared decision-making (SDM) in gender-affirming medical care (GAMC). Part of a larger project, this study used a participatory design. We included transgender and gender diverse (TGD) clients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) throughout the study in co-creation workshops. In an iterative process, we (1) established stakeholders' needs, (2) reached a consensus on the aims, content, and design, (3) developed and tested successive renditions, and (4) presented the final version of the tool. The final tool aims to (A) elucidate the client's care request and corresponding treatment preferences, (B) foster an explicit dialogue between TGD client and HCP about expected/preferred decisional roles and collaboration, (C) stimulate a systematic joint reflection on and handling of SDM-related ethical challenges. The GenderJourney provides non-directive ethics support to jointly reflect on and foster good SDM, including its inherent ethical challenges. Future studies should focus on its implementation and actual contribution to good SDM. GenderJourney may be used in GAMC to support the dialogue on what good SDM entails and the identification, discussion, and handling of SDM-related ethical challenges. • Stakeholders in gender-affirming medical care face SDM-related ethical challenges. • Clinical ethics support tools may help to recognize and deal with such challenges. • Using a participatory design, we developed such a tool called "GenderJourney." • GenderJourney fosters a joint reflection on good SDM and related ethical challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]