Search

Goal: The objective of this study was to better understand how healthcare systems' unit- and system-level leaders perceive and experience moral distress consultation services, including their utility, efficacy, and sustainability., Methods: A multimethod design was conducted in tandem across two academic medical centers with longstanding and active moral distress consultation services. Moral distress data for healthcare providers participating in moral distress consultation were collected. The authors also conducted interviews about moral distress consultation with unit and organizational leaders using a semistructured interview format. They analyzed interview transcripts using both inductive and deductive coding strategies. Relevant themes and categories were then transferred onto a thematic map for final analysis., Principal Findings: Twenty moral distress consults (10 at each institution) were held during the five-month study period. The mean reported moral distress score for all preconsult participants (n = 52) was 6.9 (SD = 2.5), with scores ranging from 0 to 10. In the combined presurvey and postsurvey group (n = 22), the mean moral distress score was 5.9 (SD = 2.2) prior to the consult and 5.3 (SD = 2.7) after the consult. Participants indicated that moral distress causes were primarily team-level-focused prior to moral distress consultation and system-level-focused after consultation. As consult data were collected, eight unit- and system-level leaders were interviewed. Leaders described moral distress consultation as valuable and empowering to unit-based staff. They endorsed the service's ability to create safe spaces for open communication about morally distressing events. Leaders also suggested the need for more diverse professional representation (outside of nursing) among consultants and participants, as well as more transparent and consistent education plans related to the service, not only to increase leaders' knowledge and awareness of moral distress, but also to increase the visibility of the consult service, both within and outside the organization. Finally, leadership teams valued qualitative accounts of morally distressing events from staff., Practical Applications: Addressing moral distress requires intentional and systemic collaboration, including open communication between moral distress consultation leaders, participants, and unit- and system-level leadership teams. Transparent education plans, broad professional representation, and flexible success measures-including both quantitative and qualitative metrics-are necessary and should be considered for any current or developing moral distress consultation services., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2025 Foundation of the American College of Healthcare Executives.)

When the COVID-19 surge hit New York City hospitals, the Division of Medical Ethics at Weill Cornell Medical College, and our affiliated ethics consultation services, faced waves of ethical issues sweeping forward with intensity and urgency. In this article, we describe our experience over an eight-week period (16 March through 10 May 2020), and describe three types of services: clinical ethics consultation (CEC); service practice communications/interventions (SPCI); and organizational ethics advisement (OEA). We tell this narrative through the prism of time, describing the evolution of ethical issues and trends as the pandemic unfolded. We delineate three phases: anticipation and preparation, crisis management, and reflection and adjustment. The first phase focused predominantly on ways to address impending resource shortages and to plan for remote ethics consultation, and CECs focused on code status discussions with surrogates. The second phase was characterized by the dramatic convergence of a rapid increase in the number of critically ill patients, a growing scarcity of resources, and the reassignment/redeployment of staff outside their specialty areas. The third phase was characterized by the recognition that while the worst of the crisis was waning, its medium- and long-term consequences continued to pose immense challenges. We note that there were times during the crisis that serving in the role of clinical ethics consultant created a sense of dis-ease as novel as the coronavirus itself. In retrospect we learned that our activities far exceeded the familiar terrain of clinical ethics consultation and extended into other spheres of organizational life in novel ways that were unanticipated before this pandemic. To that end, we defined and categorized a middle level of ethics consultation, which we have termed service practice communication intervention (SPCI). This is an underappreciated dimension of the work that ethics consult services are capable of in times of crisis. We believe that the pandemic has revealed the many enduring ways that ethics consultation services can more robustly contribute to the ethical life of their institutions moving forward., (Copyright 2020 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To determine the number of top-ranked U.S. academic institutions that require ethics consultation for specific adult clinical circumstances (e.g., family requests for potentially inappropriate treatment) and to detail those circumstances and the specific clinical scenarios for which consultations are mandated., Design: Cross-sectional survey study, conducted online or over the phone between July 2016 and October 2017., Setting: We identified the top 50 research medical schools through the 2016 U.S. News and World Report rankings. The primary teaching hospital for each medical school was included., Subjects: The chair/director of each hospital's adult clinical ethics committee, or a suitable alternate representative familiar with ethics consultation services, was identified for study recruitment., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: A representative from the adult ethics consultation service at each of the 50 target hospitals was identified. Thirty-six of 50 sites (72%) consented to participate in the study, and 18 (50%) reported having at least one current mandatory consultation policy. Of the 17 sites that completed the survey and listed their triggers for mandatory ethics consultations, 20 trigger scenarios were provided, with three sites listing two distinct clinical situations. The majority of these triggers addressed family requests for potentially inappropriate treatment (9/20, 45%) or medical decision-making for unrepresented patients lacking decision-making capacity (7/20, 35%). Other triggers included organ donation after circulatory death, initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, denial of valve replacement in patients with subacute bacterial endocarditis, and posthumous donation of sperm. Twelve (67%) of the 18 sites with mandatory policies reported that their protocol(s) was formally documented in writing., Conclusions: Among top-ranked academic medical centers, the existence and content of official policies regarding situations that mandate ethics consultations are variable. This finding suggests that, despite recent critical care consensus guidelines recommending institutional review as standard practice in particular scenarios, formal adoption of such policies has yet to become widespread and uniform.

Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) frequently provide guidance to parents feeling grief and uncertainty. In response to a case in which a CEC works with parents making end-of-life decisions for their child, we argue that CECs should use insights from decision science to consider how emotional distress, information-processing heuristics, and person-environment relationships can influence decision making. Rather than rely on decision aids, CECs should take a personalized, values-based approach to facilitating decision making that acknowledges context and a plurality of possible "right" answers. By using this approach and insights from decision science to support parental decision making, the consultation itself becomes a decision aid, as consultants and parents engage in shared decision making through facilitated discussion and reflection., (© 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: There is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument (Euro-MCD) instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation., Methods: A North European field survey among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used., Results: All outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%-97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. 'Better interactions with patient/family' emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents., Conclusions: The findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as moral reflexivity and moral attitude outcomes, should still be included. In the future, a combination of empirical findings (practice) and normative reflection (theories) will contribute to the revision of the instrument., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In order to build on the information that was obtained in the course of the first study, a follow-up survey was conducted first by phone and subsequently in a written form between August and October 2014. We contacted 1.858 hospitals in all of Germany for the follow-up survey by phone. In cases where a hospital had not participated in the first study, the willingness to participate in the follow-up survey was established in advance. The survey's dispatch was ensured in the case of acceptance. The same structured survey was used as a research tool. The data of the first study and the follow-up survey were merged and evaluated. 654 surveys (response rate 35.2 %) could be evaluated altogether. Our survey by phone revealed that 912 hospitals in all of Germany have at least one form of clinical ethics consultation available. The health care ethics committee is the most frequently implemented structure of clinical ethics consultation. The implementation of clinical ethics consultation is dependent on sponsorship and hospital size. Recommendations to deliver structures of clinical ethics consultations (ZEKO 2006, AEM 2010) have a smaller influence on the implementation compared to the certification by KTQ respectively proCum Cert. The rate of implementation in regard to the structures of clinical ethics consultation has steadily increased for years. The establishment of clinical ethics consultation in German hospitals should be further promoted. It would be desirable further to develop suitable juridical regulations in order to implement clinical ethics consultation as well as structural parameters.

There is considerable support for the idea that an atmosphere of safety can foster learning in groups, especially during ethics training courses. However, the question how safety dynamics works during ethics courses is still understudied. This article aims to investigate safety dynamics by examining a critical incident during a military ethics train-the trainer course during which safety was threatened. We examine this incident by means of a four-factor analysis model from the field of Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI). We show that during ethics training courses a safety paradox can occur, involving a tension between honesty and openness to other perspectives and values. Finally, we discuss how trainers can foster safety during ethics training.

Clinical ethics support (CES) services are experiencing a phase of flourishing and of growing recognition. At the same time, however, the expectations regarding the acceptance and the integration of traditional CES services into clinical processes are not met. Ethics rounds as an additional instrument or as an alternative to traditional clinical ethics support strategies might have the potential to address both deficits. By implementing ethics rounds, we were able to better address the needs of the clinical sections and to develop a more comprehensive account of ethics quality in our hospital, which covers the level of decisions and actions, and also the level of systems and processes and aspects of ethical leadership., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: To support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations, Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) are increasingly implemented. To assess the impact of CES, it is important to evaluate outcomes. Despite general claims about outcomes from MCD experts and some qualitative research, there exists no conceptual analysis of outcomes yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically define and categorize MCD outcomes. An additional aim was to compare these outcomes with the outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument from 2014, to further validate this Instrument., Methods: The concept mapping method was used and involves qualitative and quantitative steps including brainstorming, individual structuring, computation of concept maps (by principal component analysis and cluster analysis), group interpretation and utilization. In total, 12 experienced MCD participants from a variety of professional backgrounds participated in two sessions., Results: The focus group brainstorm resulted in a list of 85 possible MCD outcomes, of which a point map and concept maps were constructed. After a thorough discussion of each cluster, final consensus was reached on the names and position of 8 clusters of MCD outcomes: 1) Organisation and Policy; 2) Team development; 3) Personal development focused on the Other Person; 4) Personal development as Professional, focused on Skills; 5) Personal development as Professional, focused on Knowledge; 6) Personal development as an Individual; 7) Perception and Connection; and 8) Concrete action., Conclusions: This study explored and categorized MCD outcomes in a concept mapping focus group. When comparing the results with the Euro-MCD Instrument, our study confirms that outcomes of MCD can be categorized in clusters referring to the organisational level, team development, personal development (both as an individual and a professional) and the concrete case-level. In developing CES evaluation tools, it is important to be explicit if an outcome refers to the individual or the team, to knowledge or skills, to the organisation or the specific case. The findings will be used in the further validation of the Euro-MCD Instrument. The current study further contributes to the field of evaluating CES in general and defining outcomes of MCD in particular.

This paper refers to the quality management process of the Laboratory of Clinical Bioethics (LCB) of the University of Padua (Italy), which has obtained the quality certification to ISO 9001:2008, as a Clinical Ethics Support Service. Its activities consist mainly in clinical ethics consultations and training services, addressed to those who are called to decisions with ethical implications in the clinical setting, proposing a structured approach to identify and analyze the ethical issues that may loom in the relationships between health professionals and patients, and participating in their solution. The expected benefits of the application of ISO 9001 were mainly the following: to formalize the procedure adopted for clinical ethics consultation and training, to obtain a controlled management of documents, information and data, to ensure and demonstrate the quality of the provided activities and to make methods and organization publicly available. The main results which have been achieved with the 'quality management project' are summarized as follows: the enunciation of LCB Mission and Quality Policy; the drafting of the procedure by which clinical ethics consultation is provided; the formalization of members' skills and the adoption of relevant process and outcome indicators. Our experience may be useful in promoting accountability for the quality of ethics consultation services. We consider the certification process as a tool for transparent and reliable management of one of the most critical tasks in the current context of healthcare, motivating similar facilities to undertake similar pathways, with the aim to provide quality control on their activities.

Introduction: Ethics Consultation Services (ECS) and Ethical Committees manage several aspects of clinical ethical issues. In Italy there are only Ethical Committees, and, although they should also perform ethical consultations, their activity is limited to approving clinical trial protocols., Aim: To analyse the opinions of a sample of Nurses and Physicians about their motivations to ask for an ethical consultation., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of Italian Nurses and Physicians., Results: Respondents would request ethical consultations mainly for end-of-life issues and, secondarily, for conflicts with patients' families. Respondents identified the provision of suggestions for hospital policy, the development of ethical guidelines, and the counselling for individual cases requested by clinicians, patients or families as the most important functions of ECS., Conclusions: ECS activities should focus on counselling and support to decisions in complex ethical situations according to institutional policies and guidelines self-developed.

Ethics consultation in institutions of the healthcare system has been given a standard form based on three pillars: education, the development of guidelines and concrete ethics consultation in case conferences. The spread of ethics committees, which perform these tasks on an organizational level, is a remarkable historic achievement. At the same time it cannot be denied that modern ethics consultation neglects relevant aspects of care ethics approaches. In our essay we present an "ethics of care" approach as well as an empirical pilot project-"Ethics from the bottom up"-which organizes ethics consultation based on this focus. Findings and philosophy of the project will be discussed as far as relevant for ethics consultation in the healthcare system.

Background: Medical success in the last century has caused situations, in which the question arises whether therapy is right. In the same time autonomy has become more and more important. Furthermore, human beings want to decide on health, life and dying., Approach: Experience of limitations of life and desire of autonomy in healthcare lead to ethical questions. Different ethical services were established to deal with and to solve problems. Ethics committees with multiprofessional members and different qualifications will give guidance in critical decision making. Ethics services do not receive responsibility for the decision, but helps those who are responsible by structured reflection, estimation of values and including all concerned., Discussion: Implementing ethics services also encounters obstructions and scepticism. Time, responsibility for therapy and criticism of customs and structures must be considered to perpetuate success. Instructions for implementing ethics services are presented.

Existing state surrogate decision-maker laws are fragmented and inconsistent and fail to ensure that all eligible decision makers of the same surrogate priority class are included in the healthcare decisions made for an incapacitated loved one. In this article, we explore three categories of harm that result from failing to include all surrogates of equal priority in a patient's healthcare decision, namely harms to the patient, harms to the excluded surrogate, and harms to the family. Given these harms, we argue that clinical ethicists have a moral obligation to take reasonable steps to include all surrogate decision makers of equal priority in the healthcare decision-making process for patients without a designated healthcare proxy., (Copyright 2014 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

A central task for clinical ethics consultants and committees (CEC) is providing analysis of, and advice on, prospective or retrospective clinical cases. However, several kinds of biases may threaten the integrity, relevance or quality of the CEC's deliberation. Bias should be identified and, if possible, reduced or counteracted. This paper provides a systematic classification of kinds of bias that may be present in a CEC's case deliberation. Six kinds of bias are discussed, with examples, as to their significance and risk factors. Possible remedies are suggested. The potential for bias is greater when the case deliberation is performed by an individual ethics consultant than when an entire clinical ethics committee is involved., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

The aim of this paper is to delineate current position of clinical ethics in the Croatian healthcare system by analyzing the following: representation of clinical ethics contents in the curricula of medical and associated schools; composition and role of clinical ethics consultations; and establishment of an ethical/legal framework for the conduct of research. Curriculum investigation, literature review, arid analysis of the Croatian Act on the Protection of Patients' Rights were performed. The contents of clinical ethics are offered through 63 obligatory and elective subjects at 12 institutions. It is wrongly placed either too early or too late within the curriculum. Continuity at all levels of health professional education is needed. Croatian experience with clinical ethics consultations is shaped only by ethics committees. Problematic is the review of research protocols indicated as their main activity. Inclusion of team and individual consultations would increase the availability and facilitate the usage of ethics support services. The Act on the Protection of Patients' Rights is based on the principles of humanity and availability, ensuring the right to protection when participating in clinical trials. Unfortunately, the outdated paradigm of paternalistic medicine aggravates the respect for patients' rights in cure, care and research. A shift towards the patient/person-centered healthcare system would put the Act into everyday practice. Although clinical ethics has entered the Croatian healthcare system in a formal and practical way, the authors wish to emphasize the need to approach the European and other international standards regarding the recent Croatian accession to the European Union.

The structure of ethics work in a hospital is complex. Professional ethics, research ethics and clinical ethics committees (CECs) are important parts of this structure, in addition to laws and national and institutional codes of ethics. In Norway all hospital trusts have a CEC, most of these discuss cases by means of a method which seeks to include relevant guidelines and laws into the discussion. In recent years many committees have received more cases which have concerned questions of principle. According to Ellen Fox and co-authors the traditional CEC model suffers from a number of weaknesses. Therefore, in their organization a separate body deals with organizational matters. In this paper, we discuss what is gained and what is lost by creating two separate bodies doing ethics consultation. We do this through an analysis of detailed minutes of CEC discussions in one CEC during a 6-year period. 30 % of all referrals concerned matters of principle. Some of these discussions originated in a dilemma related to a particular patient. Most of the discussions had some consequences within the hospital organization, for clinical practice, for adjustment of guidelines, or may have influenced national policy. We conclude that a multiprofessional CEC with law and ethics competency and patient representation may be well suited also for discussion of general ethical principles. A CEC is a forum which can help bridge the gap between clinicians and management by increasing understanding for each others' perspectives.

Background: Clinical ethics support, in particular Moral Case Deliberation, aims to support health care providers to manage 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 but flexible outcome evaluation instrument. 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 86 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 = 73) 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.

Background: The purpose of this study was to describe the impact of clinical ethics consultations among patients with head and neck cancer in order to better anticipate and manage clinical challenges., Methods: A database was queried to identify patients with head and neck cancer for whom ethics consultation was performed at a comprehensive cancer center (n = 14). Information from the database was verified via data abstraction and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively., Results: Common requests for ethics consultation involved code status (6 of 14) and withdrawal/withholding life-sustaining treatments (6 of 14). Common contextual features were interpersonal conflicts (6 of 14) and communication barriers (5 of 14). Airway management concerns were frequent (5 of 14). Whereas 21% of patients had do not resuscitate (DNR) orders before ethics consultation, 79% were DNR subsequently., Conclusion: Ethics consultations among patients with head and neck cancer reflect distinctive complexities inherent to their disease, but are entirely consistent with global clinical ethical themes. Consideration of communication barriers, social isolation/stigma, symptom control, and airway management are critical., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The study aimed to explore the subjective need of healthcare professionals for ethics consultation, their experience with ethical conflicts, and expectations and objections toward a Clinical Ethics Committee. Staff at a university hospital took part in a survey (January to June 2010) using a questionnaire with open and closed questions. Descriptive data for physicians and nurses (response rate = 13.5%, n = 101) are presented. Physicians and nurses reported similar high frequencies of ethical conflicts but rated the relevance of ethical issues differently. Nurses stated ethical issues as less important to physicians than to themselves. Ethical conflicts were mostly discussed with staff from one's own profession. Respondents predominantly expected the Clinical Ethics Committee to provide competent support. Mostly, nurses feared it might have no influence on clinical practice. Findings suggest that experiences of ethical conflicts might reflect interprofessional communication patterns. Expectations and objections against Clinical Ethics Committees were multifaceted, and should be overcome by providing sufficient information. The Clinical Ethics Committee needs to take different perspectives of professions into account.

This article is intended to serve as a roadmap to help new healthcare ethics leaders establish or renew an ethics program in a healthcare organization. The authors share a systemic step-by-step process for navigating this early career passage. In this paper, we describe five critical success strategies and provide explanations and concrete tools to help get you on the road to success as quickly and painlessly as possible. We will discuss how to define your role; diagnose your organization's needs; build important relationships; and develop a strategic plan for starting or revitalizing an ethics program. We also review some of the more personal challenges that may be encountered along the way, and identify social supports and self-care strategies. The advice we provide grows out of reflections on our collective experience as new ethics leaders in three Ontario healthcare organizations.

This paper describes the ethics approval processes for two multicentre, nationwide, qualitative health service research projects. The paper explains that the advent of the National Ethics Application Form has brought many improvements, but that attendant processes put in place at local health network and Human Research Ethics Committee levels may have become significantly more complicated, particularly for innovative qualitative research projects. The paper raises several questions based on its analysis of ethics application processes currently in place. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC? The complexity of multicentre research ethics applications for research in health services has been addressed by the introduction of the National Ethics Application Form. Uptake of the form across the country's human research ethics committees has been uneven. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD? This paper adds detailed insight into the ethics application process as it is currently enacted across the country. The paper details this process with reference to difficulties faced by multisite and qualitative studies in negotiating access to research sites, ethics committees' relative unfamiliarity with qualitative research , and apparent tensions between harmonisation and local sites' autonomy in approving research. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS? Practitioners aiming to engage in research need to be aware that ethics approval takes place in an uneven procedural landscape, made up of variable levels of ethics approval harmonization and intricate governance or site-specific assessment processes.

Ethical issues arising in clinical practice are complex and clinicians must be able to manage the needs of ethically vulnerable patients and families. This paper describes a model for providing Clinical Ethics Support Services as a broad spectrum of care for management of conflict and ethically difficult situations in health care and describes how an ethics consultation process was transformed to a Holistic Care Continuum for managing the needs of ethically vulnerable patients. During a 4-year journey at a regional medical center, a Family Support Team played a central role in identification of ethically vulnerable patients/family, interdisciplinary connectivity, and iterative engagement in the clinical milieu. Concepts of professional advocacy and interdisciplinary perspectives resulted in a model for ethically sound patient care promoting communication among patients/family, staff, and professionals; clarification of interdisciplinary roles and responsibilities; establishment of mutually derived goals and shared solutions; and implementation of interventions maximizing institutional resources., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Members of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Standing Committee of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities present a collection of insights and recommendations developed from their collective experience, intended for those engaged in the work of healthcare ethics consultation.

To meet all physicians' needs for ethics consultation in Finland, a novel form of service, the Physicians' Ethics Forum, was founded in 2003. The Forum is a cost-efficient service based on electronic communication. In this paper, experiences throughout its first 6 years are described.

Objective: The purpose of this article is to investigate the need for ethics support in Dutch healthcare institutions in order to understand why ethics support is often not used in practice and which factors are relevant in this context., Methods: This study had a mixed methods design integrating quantitative and qualitative research methods. Two survey questionnaires, two focus groups and 17 interviews were conducted among board members and ethics support staff in Dutch healthcare institutions., Findings: Most respondents see a need for ethics support. This need is related to the complexity of contemporary healthcare, the contribution of ethics support to the core business of the organisation and to the surplus value of paying structural attention to ethical issues. The need for ethics support is, however, not unconditional. Reasons for a lacking need include: aversion of innovations, negative associations with the notion of ethics support service, and organisational factors like resources and setting., Conclusion: There is a conditioned need for ethics support in Dutch healthcare institutions. The promotion of ethics support in healthcare can be fostered by focusing on formats which fit the needs of (practitioners in) healthcare institutions. The emphasis should be on creating a (culture of) dialogue about the complex situations which emerge daily in contemporary healthcare practice.

The first clinical ethics committees (CEC) in Norway were established in 1996. This started as an initiative from hospital clinicians, the Norwegian Medical Association, and health authorities and politicians. Norwegian hospitals are, by and large, publicly funded through taxation, and all inpatient treatment is free of charge. Today, all the 23 hospital trusts (providing specialized and hospital-based healthcare services to the Norwegian population of 4.9 million people) have established at least one committee. Center for Medical Ethics (SME), University of Oslo, receives an annual amount of US$335,000 from the Ministry of Health and Care Services to coordinate the committees and to facilitate competency building for committee members.

We describe the ethics consultation service (ECS) at the Cleveland Clinic and report on its activities over a 24-month period in which 478 consultations were performed.To our knowledge, this is the largest case series of ethics consultations reported to date. Established more than 25 years ago, the ECS at the Cleveland Clinic is staffed by multiple consultants with advanced training in bioethics. Several of these ethicists work closely with specialized clinical units and research departments, where they participate in multidisciplinary meetings and provide specialized assistance. This combination of historical experience, large numbers of consultation requests, and specialized clinical ethicists suggests that the experience at the Cleveland Clinic may be helpful to ethicists and others who may be considering how to structure and sustain a vibrant ECS. Our results highlight the diversity of activities performed by a high-volume ECS at a tertiary care facility. Our hope in sharing the inner workings of the ECS at the Cleveland Clinic is to promote dialogue on common practices and approaches across medical institutions that support ethics consultation.

Most organizations and/or their sub-units like ethics programs want to acquire the knowledge, skills and other resources needed to achieve their goals efficiently and effectively. Thus, they want to acquire or develop needed "capacity." But there are pre-conditions to building capacity that are often overlooked or forgotten, but which nevertheless, must be in place before capacity can be developed. This essay identifies these pre-conditions and discusses why they are necessary before attempts are made to enhance the capacity of any ethics program. The essay closes by offering a series of questions that ethics program leaders/and or members can asked themselves to assess whether or not these pre-conditions exist.

The tripartite functions of an ethics committee are case consultation, institutional policy review and development, and ethics education. Preparation before calling an ethics consultation is critical. In addition, serving on an ethics committee provides a personally and professionally rewarding experience because of the service performed for staff, patients, and families. This author encourages nurses to volunteer for this experience, as there is no better way to understand the perplexing ethical problems in health care today. As nurses become more active on ethics committees, health care will transition from the traditional demand-initiated consult to a process that will emphasize the prevention of ethical conflicts by fostering the development of ethical practice protocols or guidelines (Nelson et al., 2008).

Background: Decisions about the allocation and rationing of medical interventions likely occur in all health care systems worldwide. So far very little attention has been given to the question of what role ethics consultation and ethics committees could or should play in questions of allocation at the hospital level., Objectives and Methods: This article argues for the need for ethics consultation in rationing decisions using empirical data about the status quo and the inherent nature of bedside rationing. Subsequently, it introduces a 4-stage process for establishing and conducting ethics consultation in rationing questions with systematic reference to core elements of procedural justice., Results: Qualitative and quantitative findings show a significant demand for ethics consultation expressed directly by doctors, as well as additional indirect evidence of such a need as indicated by ethically challenging circumstances of inconsistent and structurally disadvantaging rationing decisions. To address this need, we suggest 4 stages for establishing and conducting ethics consultation in rationing questions we recommend: (1) training, (2) identifying actual scarcity-related problems at clinics, (3) supporting decision-making, and (4) evaluation., Conclusion: This process of ethics consultation regarding rationing decisions would facilitate the achievement of several practical goals: (i) encouragement of an awareness and understanding of ethical problems in bedside rationing, (ii) encouragement of achieving efficiency along with rationing, (iii) reinforcement of consistency in inter- and intraindividual decision-making, (iv) encouragement of explicit reflection and justification of the prioritization criteria taken into consideration, (v) improvement in internal (in-house) and external transparency, and (vi) prevention of the misuse of the corresponding consulting structures.

Attention to the ethical concerns of healthcare aides can provide important information about patients' needs to careproviders, improve the ethical environment of an institution, and benefit aides who suffer from bearing ethical concerns alone. All persons benefit from sharing their ethical concerns with others. Among other benefits, ethics consultation offers careproviders, caregivers, healthcare aides, patients, and patients' loved ones an opportunity to have their concerns heard. John Fletcher tried to follow every ethics consultation with a debriefing for all participants, including patients and family members, to increase the possibility for continued healing after the conclusion of the consultation, and there are good reasons to follow this practice.

Practitioners in critical care have made a significant progress in caring for dying patients in critical care by taking advantage of the suggestions from their professional groups. Progress has been made in responding to and controlling patients' pain. Major initiatives from the Joint Commission and the American Pain Society have helped direct this improvement. Palliative care consultations as well as ethics consultations have improved symptom control in the critically ill. Issues of consent have been problematic for dying patients in critical care especially in the area of discontinuing therapies. But, better policies related to advance directives have been developed to ensure good care. Spiritual care has received more attention, and now chaplains are recognized by the Society for Critical Care Medicine as integral to the critical care team. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses has been a leader in improving end-of-life issues and continues to spearhead many projects to improve end-of-life care.

This paper provides a description of the role of the clinical ethicist as it is generally experienced in Canada. It examines the activities of Canadian ethicists working in healthcare institutions and the way in which their work incorporates more than ethics case consultation. The Canadian Bioethics Society established a "Taskforce on Working Conditions for Bioethics" (hereafter referred to as the Taskforce), to make recommendations on a number of issues affecting ethicists and to develop a model role description. This essay carefully assesses this model role description.

Researchers have longstanding concerns about the logistical and administrative burdens posed by ethics review of multisite studies involving human participants. Centralised ethics review, in which approval by one committee has authority across multiple sites, is widely touted as a strategy for streamlining the process. The Harmonisation of Multi-centre Ethical Review (HoMER) project is currently developing such a system for Australia. It is unclear how centralised review will work for multisite Indigenous health research, where the views of local stakeholders are important and community consultation is mandatory. Our recent experience in conducting the National Indigenous Eye Health Survey (NIEHS) shows how elaborate the current ethics approval and community consultation processes can be, and points to several lessons and ideas to guide pending reforms.

Clinical ethics consultation has become an important resource, but unlike other health care disciplines, it has no accreditation or accepted curriculum for training programs, no standards for practice, and no way to measure effectiveness. The Clinical Ethics Credentialing Project was launched to pilot-test approaches to train, credential, privilege, and evaluate consultants.

Background: The traditional approach to resolving ethics concerns may not address underlying organisational issues involved in the evolution of these concerns. This represents a missed opportunity to improve quality of care "upstream". The purpose of this study was to understand better which organisational issues may contribute to ethics concerns., Methods: Directed content analysis was used to review ethics consultation notes from an academic children's hospital from 1996 to 2006 (N = 71). The analysis utilised 18 categories of organisational issues derived and modified from published quality improvement protocols., Results: Organisational issues were identified in 68 of the 71 (96%) ethics consult notes across a range of patient settings and reasons for consultation. Thirteen of the 18 categories of organisational issues were identified and there was a median of two organisational issues per consult note. The most frequently identified organisational issues were informal organisational culture (eg, collective practices and approaches to situations with ethical dimensions that are not guided by policy), policies and procedures (eg, staff knows policy and/or procedural guidelines for an ethical concern but do not follow it) and communication (eg, communication about critical information, orders, or hand-offs repeatedly does not occur among services)., Conclusions: Organisational issues contribute to ethical concerns that result in clinical ethics consults. Identifying and addressing organisational issues such as informal culture and communication may help decrease the recurrence of future similar ethics concerns.

Ethics consultations are utilized in health care to identify and manage conflict, difficult decision-making, and ethical issues. In bioethics mediation, a more updated approach using interpersonal, mediative, conflict management, and dispute resolution skills is merged with ethical principles to manage dilemmas arising in healthcare settings. This article argues, based on a professional obligation to advocate for the good of the client, that nurses must assume leadership roles in mediation processes. Nurses can initiate and fully participate in formal bioethics mediation and other mediative interventions. Nurse administrators can work to evolve existing ethics consult models to mediation models. Nonetheless, mediative efforts of individual nurses must be grounded in realization of the multifactorial nature of conflict and dilemma in healthcare settings. Multidisciplinary mediative interventions, framed by sound institutional policies, may best serve the complex needs of ethically vulnerable clients. To best advocate for these at-risk clients, nurses must assume various leadership roles in mediation processes.

Background: Clinical ethics consultation services have been established in many countries during recent decades. An important task is to discuss concrete clinical cases. However, empirical research observing what is happening during such deliberations is scarce., Objectives: To explore clinical ethics committees' deliberations and to identify areas for improvement., Design: A pilot study including observations of committees deliberating a paper case, semistructured group interviews, and qualitative analysis of the data., Participants: Nine hospital ethics committees in Norway., Results and Interpretations: Key elements of the deliberations included identifying the ethical problems; exploring moral values and principles; clarifying key concepts and relevant legal regulation; exploring medical facts, the patient's situation, the therapists' perspective, analogous clinical situations, professional uncertainties, the patient's and relatives' perspective, and clinical communication; identifying the involved parties and how to involve them; identifying possible courses of action, and possible conclusion and follow-up. The various elements were closely interwoven. The content and conclusions varied and seemed to be contingent on the committee members' interpretations, experience and knowledge. Important aspects of a clinical ethics deliberation were sometimes neglected. When the committees used a deliberation procedure and a blackboard, the deliberations tended to become more systematic and transparent. Many of the committees were insecure about how to include the involved parties and how to document the deliberations., Conclusion: Clinical ethics committees may provide an important arena for multidisciplinary discussions of complex clinical ethics challenges. However, this seems to require adequate composition, adoption of transparent deliberation procedures, and targeted training.

Patients have the right to make decisions regarding their medical care, including the right to refuse treatment or to issue do-not-resuscitate orders as part of an advance directive. Health care providers must comply with the patient's wishes regarding care. Automatic suspension or continuation of a do-not-resuscitate order for a patient undergoing surgery cannot be justified. Surgical team members should consult with the patient and, if necessary, with an ethics expert or committee to determine whether the do-not-resuscitate order is to be maintained or completely or partially suspended during anesthesia and surgery. All surgical departments should have a written policy and procedure concerning the treatment of patients with do-not-resuscitate orders.

Clinical ethics support, including ethics consultation, has become established in the field of medical practice throughout the world. This practice has been regarded as useful, most notably in the UK and the USA, in solving ethical problems encountered by both medical practitioners and those who receive medical treatment. In Japan, however, few services are available to respond to everyday clinical ethical issues, although a variety of difficult ethical problems arise daily in the medical field: termination of life support, euthanasia and questions about patient autonomy. In light of these conditions, a group of 17 volunteer educators and researchers from the area of biomedical ethics, including the authors, have formed the Clinical Ethics Support and Education Project, and began providing Japan's first small team clinical ethics consultation service in October, 2006. Members include scholars of biomedical ethics, scholars of philosophy and ethics, legal professionals and legal scholars, nurses and doctors, consisting of five women and 12 men. Consultation teams, made up of a small number of members, were organised each time a request for consultation was received. Over approximately 15 months (October 2006-December 2007), the programme received 22 consultation requests from medical practitioners and medical institutions, and three from the families of patients. In this paper, we will discuss the status of our consultation service and examples of consultation cases we have handled. In addition, we will examine the process of evaluating small team clinical ethics consultation services, as well as the strengths and weakness of such programmes.