Search

With the increasing professionalization of clinical ethics, some hospitals and health systems utilize both ethics committees and professional clinical ethicists to address their ethics needs. Drawing upon historical critiques of ethics committees and their own experiences, the authors argue that, in ethics programs with one or more professional clinical ethicists, ethics committees should be dissolved when they fail to meet minimum standards of effectiveness. The authors outline several criteria for assessing effectiveness, describe the benefits of a model that places primary responsibility for ethics work with professional clinical ethicists-the PCE-primary model , and offer suggestions for alternative ethics program structures that empower healthcare professionals to contribute to ethics work in ways more tailored to their strengths and skills while minimizing the shortcomings of ethics committees.

Benchmarks against which healthcare ethics consultation (HCEC) services can assess their performance are needed. As first-generation benchmarks continue to be developed, it is the obligation of the field to continually evaluate how these measures reflect the performance of any single HCEC service. This will be possible only with widespread reporting of standardized data points. In their article in this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, Glover and colleagues provide a valuable preliminary approach for assessing appropriate consult volumes for a HCEC service. The limitations of their study read as a call to action for the field of clinical ethics to expand and standardize data reporting so that more robust metrics can be developed. In response to this call by Glover and colleagues, the Cleveland Clinic HCEC service provides consult data from 2015 through 2019 for one of its medical centers, and offers an additional volume-based metric, consult-to-ICU-to-bed ratio (CiBR), that may add nuance to any normative assessment of HCEC service consult volume. Given that volume-based metrics are the native language of the clinical environment, efforts to improve such metrics in the field through transparency and standardization are warranted. However, the expositive power of volume- based metrics is limited; additional domains related to quality and outcomes are needed., (Copyright 2020 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Scholars and professional organizations in bioethics describe various approaches to "quality assessment" in clinical ethics. Although much of this work represents significant contributions to the literature, it is not clear that there is a robust and shared understanding of what constitutes "quality" in clinical ethics, what activities should be measured when tracking clinical ethics work, and what metrics should be used when measuring those activities. Further, even the most robust quality assessment efforts to date are idiosyncratic, in that they represent evaluation of single activities or domains of clinical ethics activities, or a range of activities at a single hospital or healthcare system. Countering this trend, iin this article we propose a framework for moving beyond our current ways of understanding clinical ethics quality, toward comprehensive quality assessment. We first describe a way to conceptualize quality assessment as a process of measuring disparate, isolated work activities; then, we describe quality assessment in terms of tracking interconnected work activities holistically, across different levels of assessment. We conclude by inviting future efforts in quality improvement to adopt a comprehensive approach to quality assessment into their improvement practices, and offer recommendations for how the field might move in this direction., (Copyright 2019 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The Institute of Medicine report on cooperative groups and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) report from the Operational Efficiency Working Group both recommend changes to the processes for opening a clinical trial. This article provides evidence for the need for such changes by completing the first comprehensive review of all the time and steps required to open a phase III oncology clinical trial and discusses the effect of time to protocol activation on subject accrual., Methods: The Dilts and Sandler method was used at four cancer centers, two cooperative groups, and the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Accrual data were also collected., Results: Opening a phase III cooperative group therapeutic trial requires 769 steps, 36 approvals, and a median of approximately 2.5 years from formal concept review to study opening. Time to activation at one group ranged from 435 to 1,604 days, and time to open at one cancer center ranged from 21 to 836 days. At centers, group trials are significantly more likely to have zero accruals (38.8%) than nongroup trials (20.6%; P < 0.0001). Of the closed NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program-approved phase III clinical trials from 2000 to 2007, 39.1% resulted in <21 accruals., Conclusions: The length, variability, and low accrual results demonstrate the need for the NCI clinical trials system to be reengineered. Improvements will be of only limited effectiveness if done in isolation; there is a need to return to the collaborative spirit with all parties creating an efficient and effective system. Recommendations put forth by the Institute of Medicine and Operational Efficiency Working Group reports, if implemented, will aid this renewal., (©2010 AACR.)