Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Bioeth ; 21(8): 4-16, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33998972

ABSTRACT

Much of the sustained attention on pandemic preparedness has focused on the ethical justification for plans for the "crisis" phase of a surge when, despite augmentation efforts, the demand for life-saving resources outstrips supply. The ethical frameworks that should guide planning and implementation of the "contingency" phase of a public health emergency are less well described. The contingency phase is when strategies to augment staff, space, and supplies are systematically deployed to forestall critical resource scarcity, reduce disproportionate harm to patients and health care providers, and provide patient care that remains functionally equivalent to conventional practice. We describe an ethical framework to inform planning and implementation for COVID-19 contingency surge responses and apply this framework to 3 use cases. Examining the unique ethical challenges of this mediating phase will facilitate proactive ethics conversations about healthcare operations during the contingency phase and ideally lead to ethically stronger health care practices.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Public Health , Emergencies , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
J Clin Ethics ; 29(2): 150-7, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30130038

ABSTRACT

The authors of this article are previous or current members of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs (CECA) Committee, a standing committee of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH). The committee is composed of seasoned healthcare ethics consultants (HCECs), and it is charged with developing and disseminating education materials for HCECs and ethics committees. The purpose of this article is to describe the educational research and development processes behind our teaching materials, which culminated in a case studies book called A Case-Based Study Guide for Addressing Patient-Centered Ethical Issues in Health Care (hereafter, the Study Guide). In this article, we also enumerate how the Study Guide could be used in teaching and learning, and we identify areas that are ripe for future work.


Subject(s)
Ethicists/education , Ethics Committees, Clinical , Ethics Consultation/standards , Humans , Organizational Objectives , Societies, Medical , United States
4.
J Clin Ethics ; 29(4): 276-284, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30605437

ABSTRACT

The Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool (ECQAT) establishes standards by which the quality of ethics consultation records (ECRs) can be assessed. These standards relate to the ethics question, consultation-specific information, ethical analysis, and recommendations and/or conclusions, and result in a score associated with one of four levels of ethics consultation quality. For the ECQAT to be useful in assessing and improving the quality of healthcare ethics consultations, individuals who rate the quality of ECRs need to be able to reliably use the tool. We developed a short course to train ethics consultants in using the ECQAT, and evaluated whether the participants (1) achieved an acceptable level of calibration in matching expert-established quality scores for a set of ethics consultations, and (2) were satisfied with the course. We recruited 28 ethics consultants to participate in a virtual, six-session course. At each session participants and faculty reviewed, rated, and discussed one to two ECRs. The participants' calibration in matching expert-established quality scores improved with repeated exposure at all levels of ethics consultation quality. Participants were generally more accurate when assessing consultation quality at the dichotomous level of "acceptable" (scores of three or four) versus "unacceptable" (scores of one or two) than they were with more a specific score. Participants had higher rates of accuracy with the extreme ratings of "strong" (level four) or "poor" (level one). Although participants were highly satisfied with the course, only a minority of participants achieved the prespecified acceptable level of calibration (that is, 80 percent or greater accuracy between their score and expert-established scores). These results suggest that ECQAT training may require more sessions or need modification in the protocol to achieve higher reliability in scoring. Such trainings are an important next step in ensuring that the ECQAT is a tool that can be used to promote improvement in ethics consultation quality.


Subject(s)
Ethics Consultation , Humans , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Reproducibility of Results
5.
Am J Bioeth ; 16(3): 3-14, 2016.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26913651

ABSTRACT

Although ethics consultation is offered as a clinical service in most hospitals in the United States, few valid and practical tools are available to evaluate, ensure, and improve ethics consultation quality. The quality of ethics consultation is important because poor quality ethics consultation can result in ethically inappropriate outcomes for patients, other stakeholders, or the health care system. To promote accountability for the quality of ethics consultation, we developed the Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool (ECQAT). ECQAT enables raters to assess the quality of ethics consultations based on the written record. Through rigorous development and preliminary testing, we identified key elements of a quality ethics consultation (ethics question, consultation-specific information, ethical analysis, and conclusions and/or recommendations), established scoring criteria, developed training guidelines, and designed a holistic assessment process. This article describes the development of the ECQAT, the resulting product, and recommended future testing and potential uses for the tool.


Subject(s)
Ethics Consultation/standards , Medical Records , Professional Competence , Quality of Health Care/standards , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Feedback, Psychological , Humans , Professional Competence/standards , United States
8.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf ; 38(3): 103-11, 2012 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22435227

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Preventive ethics (PE) is a key component of IntegratedEthics (IE), an innovative model developed by the Veterans Health Administration (VA)'s National Center for Ethics in Health Care which establishes a comprehensive, systematic, integrated approach to ethics in health care organizations. Since early 2008, IE has been implemented throughout all 153 medical centers and 21 regional networks within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. ISSUES: A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH TO ETHICS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT: PE employs a systematic, step-by-step process improvement approach called ISSUES: Identify an issue, Study the issue, Select a strategy, Undertake a plan, Evaluate and adjust, and Sustain and spread. After the ethics quality gap is described, a measureable and achievable improvement goal based on the gap is developed. One of the most challenging aspects of describing an ethics quality gap is to establish an appropriate ethical standard on which to base the operational definition of best ethics practice. PRACTICAL STEPS TO DEVELOPING A PREVENTIVE ETHICS FUNCTION: Within the VA's IE model, PE is situated as a subcommittee of the IE council, which is chaired by the facility director (equivalent to a hospital chief executive officer) and oversees all aspects of the organization's ethics program, including ethical leadership, ethics consultation, and PE. Each VA medical center is required to have a PE team led and managed by a PE coordinator and may need to address ethics issues across the full range of health care ethics domains. CONCLUSIONS: The VA's IE model establishes a robust conceptual framework, along with concrete tools and resources, to integrate PE concepts into the day-to-day operations of a health care organization and is directly transferrable to other health care organizations and systems.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/ethics , Ethics, Clinical , Ethics, Institutional , Quality Assurance, Health Care/organization & administration , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Advisory Committees , Humans , Systems Analysis , United States , United States Department of Veterans Affairs
9.
Chest ; 125(6): 2367; author reply 2367-8, 2004 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15189968
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...