Search

Aims: This study aims to develop and examine the effectiveness of a support program for reducing moral distress of nurses, based on the moral case deliberation methodology, and to study the feasibility of its implementation. Methods: Study design was an intervention study with pre/post-comparison. The support program included a short lecture and three moral case deliberation sessions for nurses working in an acute care hospital. The Measure of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals (MMD-HP) and the Euro-MCD (Moral Case Deliberation) 2.0 scale were used for pre/post-comparison, using the Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. Furthermore, post-intervention interviews were conducted with consenting participants to determine the reasons for changes in pre/post-intervention quantitative data. Of the 34 participants, 29 completed the post-questionnaire and were included in the quantitative data analysis, and 27 were included in the qualitative data analysis. Results: The mean MMD-HP total scores increased from 147.5 ± 61.0 to 159.3 ± 66.7, but not significantly (p =.375). The mean score of moral competence, a sub-scale of the Euro-MCD 2.0, increased significantly from 15.4 ± 2.4 to 16.4 ± 2.8 after the intervention (p =.036). A qualitative analysis revealed increased moral sensitivity to ethically difficult situations and improved analytical skills as the reasons for change in scores pre/post-intervention. Conclusion: The results of the qualitative analysis suggested the effectiveness of the intervention. The moral distress score increased, although not significantly, and moral competence also increased, suggesting the participants' values changed after the intervention. It was found that the support program using MCD is expected to improve participants' moral competence.

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.

"Background: Allocating admitted patients to their wards is increasingly put under pressure due to high bed occupancy rates. Consequently, allocation becomes morally challenging as it is confronted with potentially conflicting values like protecting teams’ workload, solidarity between wards and quality of care. Furthermore, there is a continuous uncertainty regarding expected intake, discharge, available beds and personnel. An integrative ethics support project was started to help to better deal with these challenges. After identifying core moral challenges, the aim of the current project was to co-create a map of values and norms for the daily allocation meetings. Methods: This qualitative study included observations of allocation meetings and 13 interviews. Subsequently, in five working group sessions a map of relevant values and norms was co-created with a selection of involved professionals. Results: Findings revealed moral challenges in three so-called ‘moral circles’: 1) one’s own team; 2) the hospital and 3) the hospital’s region. A map was developed including important and agreed upon values with 14 norms for the daily allocation meetings. Additionally, formal policies were updated and a conversation method was introduced to guide discussions when there are moral challenges. Conclusion: The joint development of the map led to a shared and practical product for both discussions and decisions regarding bed allocation. Its development already contributed to increased awareness of and openness about moral challenges. Using the map in daily allocation meetings may further stimulate moral reflection on these challenges to support these healthcare professionals in making well-considered and value-based decisions. "

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.

BackgroundThere 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsAll 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Background Patients' preferences and expectations should be taken into account in treatment decision making in the last phase of life. Shared decision making (SDM) is regarded as a way to give the patient a central role in decision making. Little is known about how SDM is used in clinical practice in advanced cancer care. Objective To examine whether and how the steps of SDM can be recognized in decision making about second- and third-line chemotherapy. Methods Fourteen advanced cancer patients were followed over time using face-to-face in-depth interviews and observations of the patients' out-clinic visits. Interviews and outpatient clinic visits in which treatment options were discussed or decisions made were transcribed verbatim and analysed using open coding. Results Patients were satisfied with the decision-making process, but the steps of SDM were barely seen in daily practice. The creation of awareness about available treatment options by physicians was limited and not discussed in an equal way. Patients' wishes and concerns were not explicitly assessed, which led to different expectations about improved survival from subsequent lines of chemotherapy. Conclusion To reach SDM in daily practice, physicians should create awareness of all treatment options, including forgoing treatment, and communicate the risk of benefit and harm. Open and honest communication is needed in which patients' expectations and concerns are discussed. Through this, the difficult process of decision making in the last phase of life can be facilitated and the focus on the best care for the specific patient is strengthened.

Background. In cancer care, difficult decisions concerning advanced treatment need to be made, weighing possible life prolongation against harmful side effects. Treatment is frequently started, showing the need to explore how decisions are made. Little is known about the perspectives of physicians on sharing decision making with patients. This qualitative study aimed to describe the perspectives of medical specialists on the decision-making process with patients with glioblastoma concerning starting new treatment. Methods. Qualitative interviews were held with medical specialists. One focus group was organized with medical professionals. Their opinions about elements of shared decision making and the applicability in the context of patients with glioblastoma were assessed. The topic list for the focus group was based on the analysis of the interviews. Qualitative analysis of the transcripts was performed by three researchers independently. Results. Medical specialists considered shared decision making to be important; however, they did not adhere to its elements. Stopping treatment was not considered equal to continuing treatment. Exploration of the patients’ wishes was done implicitly, and shared responsibility for the decision was not highly recognized. The main barriers to shared decision making were preferences of both patients and specialists for starting or continuing treatment and assumptions of physicians about knowing what patients want. Conclusion. Medical specialists recognized the importance of patient involvement but experienced difficulty in sharing decision making in practice. Elements of shared decision making are partly followed but do not guide decision making. To improve cancer care, education of medical specialists and adjustment to the elements are needed to involve patients. Implications for Practice: This study assessed medical specialists’ perspectives on sharing decision making with patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Medical specialists experienced difficulty with shared decision making in this setting. The main barriers to shared decision making related to the preferences of both patients and specialists for starting or continuing treatment and the assumptions of physicians about knowing what patients want. The findings stress the need for training specialists in how to offer alternatives, communicate uncertain benefits, and establish patients’ preferences explicitly. The elements of shared decision making require adaptations to adequately involve vulnerable patients with glioblastoma in treatment decisions at the end of life.