RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: As moral case deliberations (MCDs) have increasingly been implemented in health care institutions as a form of ethics support, it is relevant to know whether and how MCDs actually contribute to positive changes in care. Insight is needed on what actually happens in daily care practice following MCD sessions. This study aimed at investigating the impact of MCD and exploring how 'impact of MCD' should be conceptualized for future research. METHODS: A multiple-case study was conducted in a care organization for people with intellectual disabilities and/or acquired brain injury, by observing MCD sessions as 'cases', followed by interviews with health care professionals concerning the follow-up to these cases, and a focus group with involved MCD facilitators. A conceptual scheme concerning the possible impact formed the basis for analysis: (1) individual moral awareness; (2) the actions of health care professionals; (3) collaboration among health care professionals; (4) the concrete situation of the client; (5) the client's quality of care and life; (6) the organizational and policy level. RESULTS: According to interviewees, their moral awareness and their collaboration, both among colleagues and with clients' relatives, improved after MCD. Perceived impact on client situation, quality of care/life and the organizational level varied among interviewees or was difficult to define or link to MCD. Three aspects were added to the conceptual scheme concerning the impact of MCD: (a) preparations and expectations prior to the MCD session; (b) a translational step between the conclusions of the MCD session and practical events in the following period, and (c) collaboration with clients' relatives. A negative impact of MCD was also found on misunderstandings among participants and disappointment about lack of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Concretizing and conceptualizing the 'impact' of MCD is complicated as many factors play a role either before or during the transition from MCD to practice. It is important to consider 'impact' in a broad sense and to relate it to the goals and context of the MCD in question. Future studies in this field should pay additional attention to the preparations, content and process involved in ethics support, including clients' and relatives' experiences.
Asunto(s)
Consultoría Ética , Discapacidad Intelectual , Atención a la Salud , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Discapacidad Intelectual/terapia , Principios MoralesRESUMEN
Ethics support services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) intend to support healthcare professionals in ethically difficult situations. To assess outcomes of MCD, the Euro-MCD Instrument has been developed. Field studies to test this instrument are needed and have been conducted, examining important outcomes before MCD participation and experienced outcomes. The current study aimed to (1) describe how participants' perceive the importance of MCD outcomes after MCD; (2) compare these perceptions with those before MCD participation; and (3) test the factor structure of these outcomes. Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch healthcare professionals rated the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument after four and eight MCDs. Ratings were compared with those before MCD participation using paired and independent samples t-tests. The factor structure was tested using exploratory factor analyses. After 4 and 8 MCDs, 443 respectively 247 respondents completed the instrument. More than 69% rated all MCD outcomes as 'quite' or 'very' important, especially outcomes from Enhanced Collaboration, Improved Moral Reflexivity and Improved Moral Attitude. Significant differences for 16 outcomes regarding ratings before and after MCD participation were not considered meaningful. Factor analyses suggested three categories, which seemingly resemble the domains Improved Moral Reflexivity, Enhanced Collaboration and a combination of Improved Moral Attitude and Enhanced Emotional Support. After participation in MCDs, respondents confirmed the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument. The question on perceived importance and the categorization of outcomes need reconsideration. The revised instrument will be presented elsewhere, based on all field studies and theoretical reflections.
Asunto(s)
Consultoría Ética , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Principios Morales , Noruega , SueciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Professionals committed to good mental health care may experience different types of moral questions. AIM: To describe a specific conversation method for jointly discussing these moral questions: moral case deliberation. METHOD: Literature review and ethical reflection. RESULTS: The paper presents, among other things: what characterizes a good moral question, the importance of a view on (appropriate and inappropriate use of) ethics and moral case deliberation for its implementation, goals and results of moral case deliberation, and some recent developments regarding innovative use of moral case deliberation. Moral deliberation is nowadays an indispensable quality instrument in mental health care. CONCLUSION: Scientific evaluation research shows that moral case deliberation directly or indirectly contributes to professional self-care, cooperation, and, last but not least, the quality of care.
Asunto(s)
Consultoría Ética , Comunicación , Humanos , Principios MoralesRESUMEN
Dealing with euthanasia requests can be a complex matter for a doctor. How to determine whether the due diligence criteria of the Dutch Euthanasia Act are met in cases that are not straightforward? We argue that moral case deliberation (MCD), methodically structured reflective discussions on concrete moral dilemmas, can provide support in dealing with complex euthanasia requests. In this article, we discuss a case that was talked about during a MCD (in particular the CURA method, where CURA stands for 'concentrating, postponing, reflecting and action') by a group of GPs and nurses who met in the context of a network for ambulatory palliative care.This was about an older patient with multiple chronic conditions who lost any prospects of quality of life.Among other things, it was examined whether requests could be 'well-considered' (one of the due diligence criteria) when the patients are in doubt as to when euthanasia should be carried out.The importance of recognising one's own emotions as a doctor and the quality of communication between patient and doctor were also considered.For that reason, we try to show that MCD can assist in making careful and well-considered decisions when determining a course of action in the case of complex euthanasia requests and can encourage collaborative learning processes.
Asunto(s)
Consultoría Ética , Eutanasia/ética , Principios Morales , Relaciones Médico-Paciente/ética , Médicos/ética , Comunicación , Humanos , Afecciones Crónicas Múltiples/psicología , Países Bajos , Médicos/psicologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. METHODS: The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. RESULTS: The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. 'now') instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. 'better') and we omitted the question about perceived importance. CONCLUSIONS: The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.
Asunto(s)
Consultoría Ética , Humanos , Principios Morales , Países Bajos , Noruega , SueciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Moral Case Deliberations (MCDs) are reflective dialogues with a group of participants on their own moral dilemmas. Although MCD is successful as clinical ethics support (CES), it also has limitations. 1. Lessons learned from individual MCDs are not shared in order to be used in other contexts 2. Moral learning stays limited to the participants of the MCD; 3. MCD requires quite some organisational effort, 4. MCD deals with one individual concrete case. It does not address other, similar cases (it is case based). These limitations warrant research into complementary ways of providing CES to healthcare professionals. Our research objective was therefore to develop a low threshold CES tool based on a series of MCDs on autonomy in long-term care. METHODS: We used a qualitative research design in which we analyzed the process and content of a series of MCDs, combined with reflections on the theoretical background of MCD. In total 28 MCDs (10 transcripts and 18 summary reports) were analyzed by means of a thematic content analysis. In various rounds of development, the results of the analysis were combined with theoretical reflections on CES. Consequently, the tool was evaluated in three focus groups and adjusted. RESULTS: The CES tool, called 'moral compass', guides the users through a series of six subsequent questions in order to methodically reflect on their concrete moral dilemma, in the form of a booklet of 23 pages. It combines a methodical element that encourages and structures a reflection process with a substantive element, including norms, values, options, strategies, and insights regarding dealing with client autonomy. CONCLUSION: By using data from a series of MCDs, combined with theoretical reflections on MCD, ethics support and moral learning, we developed a thematic, low-threshold CES tool that supports healthcare professionals in daily practice in dealing with moral questions regarding client autonomy. It integrates examples and insights from earlier MCDs on the same topic. The moral compass is not a replacement of, but can be used complementary to MCD. The feasibility and impact of the moral compass need to be investigated in an evaluative follow-up study. The methodology presented in this paper may be used to develop moral compasses on different topics in various healthcare organizations.
Asunto(s)
Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión , Consultoría Ética , Principios Morales , Autonomía Personal , Investigación Biomédica/ética , HumanosRESUMEN
Health care professionals often face moral dilemmas. Not dealing constructively with moral dilemmas can cause moral distress and can negatively affect the quality of care. Little research has been documented with methodologies meant to support professionals in care for the homeless in dealing with their dilemmas. Moral case deliberation (MCD) is a method for systematic reflection on moral dilemmas and is increasingly being used as ethics support for professionals in various health-care domains. This study deals with the question: What is the contribution of MCD in helping professionals in an institution for care for the homeless to deal with their moral dilemmas? A mixed-methods responsive evaluation design was used to answer the research question. Five teams of professionals from a Dutch care institution for the homeless participated in MCD three times. Professionals in care for the homeless value MCD positively. They report that MCD helped them to identify the moral dilemma/question, and that they learned from other people's perspectives while reflecting and deliberating on the values at stake in the dilemma or moral question. They became aware of the moral dimension of moral dilemmas, of related norms and values, of other perspectives, and learned to formulate a moral standpoint. Some experienced the influence of MCD in the way they dealt with moral dilemmas in daily practice. Half of the professionals expect MCD will influence the way they deal with moral dilemmas in the future. Most of them were in favour of further implementation of MCD in their organization.
Asunto(s)
Consultoría Ética/normas , Personal de Salud/ética , Personas con Mala Vivienda , Principios Morales , Servicio Social/normas , Humanos , Investigación Cualitativa , Servicio Social/métodosRESUMEN
AIMS: Providing management insights regarding moral case deliberation (MCD) from the experiential perspective of nursing managers. BACKGROUND: MCD concerns systematic group-wise reflection on ethical issues. Attention to implementing MCD in health care is increasing, and managers' experiences regarding facilitating MCD's implementation have not yet been studied. METHOD: As part of an empirical qualitative study on implementing MCD in mental health care, a responsive evaluation design was used. Using former research findings (iterative procedures), a managers' focus group was organised. RESULTS: Managers appreciated MCD, fostering nurses' empowerment and critical reflection - according to managers, professional core competences. Managers found MCD a challenging intervention, resulting in dilemmas due to MCD's confidential and egalitarian nature. Managers value MCD's process-related outcomes, yet these are difficult to control/regulate. CONCLUSIONS: MCD urges managers to reflect on their role and (hierarchical) position both within MCD and in the nursing team. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: MCD is in line with transformative and participatory management, fostering dialogical interaction between management and nursing team.
Asunto(s)
Principios Morales , Enfermeras Administradoras/psicología , Grupo de Enfermería/ética , Grupo de Enfermería/organización & administración , Competencia Clínica , Grupos Focales , Humanos , Poder Psicológico , Investigación CualitativaRESUMEN
In moral case deliberation (MCD), healthcare professionals meet to reflect upon their moral questions supported by a structured conversation method and non-directive conversation facilitator. An increasing number of Dutch healthcare institutions work with MCD to (1) deal with moral questions, (2) improve reflection skills, interdisciplinary cooperation and decision-making, and (3) develop policy. Despite positive evaluations of MCD, organization and implementation of MCD appears difficult, depending on individuals or external experts. Studies on MCD implementation processes have not yet been published. The aim of this study is to describe MCD implementation processes from the perspective of nurses who co-organize MCD meetings, so called 'local coordinators'. Various qualitative methods were used within the framework of a responsive evaluation research design. The results demonstrate that local coordinators work hard on the pragmatic implementation of MCD. They do not emphasize the ethical and normative underpinnings of MCD, but create organizational conditions to foster a learning process, engagement and continuity. Local coordinators indicate MCD needs firm back-up from management regulations. These pragmatic action-oriented implementation strategies are as important as ideological reasons for MCD implementation. Advocates of clinical ethics support should pro-actively facilitate these strategies for both practical and ethical reasons.
Asunto(s)
Educación Médica Continua/organización & administración , Ética Clínica/educación , Principios Morales , Enfermeras y Enfermeros/psicología , Humanos , Países Bajos , Investigación CualitativaRESUMEN
Moral case deliberation (MCD) is a form of clinical ethics support in which the ethicist as facilitator aims at supporting professionals with a structured moral inquiry into their moral issues from practice. Cases often affect clients, however, their inclusion in MCD is not common. Client participation often raises questions concerning conditions for equal collaboration and good dialogue. Despite these questions, there is little empirical research regarding client participation in clinical ethics support in general and in MCD in particular. This article aims at describing the experiences and processes of two MCD groups with client participation in a mental healthcare institution. A responsive evaluation was conducted examining stakeholders' issues concerning client participation. Findings demonstrate that participation initially creates uneasiness. As routine builds up and client participants meet certain criteria, both clients and professionals start thinking beyond 'us-them' distinctions, and become more equal partners in dialogue. Still, sentiments of distrust and feelings of not being safe may reoccur. Client participation in MCD thus requires continuous reflection and alertness on relational dynamics and the quality of and conditions for dialogue. Participation puts the essentials of MCD (i.e., dialogue) to the test. Yet, the methodology and features of MCD offer an appropriate platform to introduce client participation in healthcare institutions.
Asunto(s)
Comités de Ética Clínica/organización & administración , Hospitales Psiquiátricos/ética , Participación del Paciente , Evaluación de Procesos, Atención de Salud , Coerción , Comunicación , Humanos , Principios Morales , Países Bajos , Restricción Física/ética , ConfianzaRESUMEN
Moral case deliberation (MCD) is a specific form of clinical ethics, aiming to stimulate ethical reflection in daily practice in order to improve the quality of care. This article focuses on the implementation of MCD in nursing homes and the questions how and where to organize MCD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate one way of organizing MCD in two Dutch nursing homes. In both of these nursing homes the MCD groups had a heterogeneous composition and were organized apart from existing institutional communication structures. As part of a naturalistic evaluation, systematic observations, interviews and focus groups were completed. The findings indicate that the heterogeneous composition and MCD meetings separate from existing structures have benefits. However, the participants also reported negative experiences. This gives rise to the question whether a mixed MCD group which meets separately is an effective way to embed MCD as an instrument for reflection on moral issues in daily practice. We conclude that there is no single answer to that question. In the end, the two implementation strategies (i.e. within existing communication structures and a mixed MCD group) can be complementary to each other.
Asunto(s)
Ética Clínica , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Casas de Salud/ética , Calidad de la Atención de Salud/ética , Consultoría Ética , Procesos de Grupo , Humanos , Países BajosRESUMEN
A traditional approach to teaching medical ethics aims to provide knowledge about ethics. This is in line with an epistemological view on ethics in which moral expertise is assumed to be located in theoretical knowledge and not in the moral experience of healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to present an alternative, contextual approach to teaching ethics, which is grounded in a pragmatic-hermeneutical and dialogical ethics. This approach is called moral case deliberation. Within moral case deliberation, healthcare professionals bring in their actual moral questions during a structured dialogue. The ethicist facilitates the learning process by using various conversation methods in order to find answers to the case and to develop moral competencies. The case deliberations are not unique events, but are a structural part of the professional training on the work floor within healthcare institutions. This article presents the underlying theory on (teaching) ethics and illustrates this approach with an example of a moral case deliberation project in a Dutch psychiatric hospital. The project was evaluated using the method of responsive evaluation. This method provided us with rich information about the implementation process and effects the research process itself also lent support to the process of implementation.
Asunto(s)
Competencia Clínica/normas , Medicina Clínica/educación , Educación de Pregrado en Medicina/métodos , Ética Médica/educación , Medicina Clínica/normas , Humanos , Desarrollo MoralRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Evidence based patient choice seems based on a strong liberal individualist interpretation of patient autonomy; however, not all patients are in favour of such an interpretation. The authors wished to assess whether ideals of autonomy in clinical practice are more in accordance with alternative concepts of autonomy from the ethics literature. This paper describes the development of a questionnaire to assess such concepts of autonomy. METHODS: A questionnaire, based on six moral concepts from the ethics literature, was sent to aneurysm patients and their surgeons. The structure of the questionnaire was assessed by factor analysis, and item reduction was based on reliability. RESULTS: Ninety six patients and 58 surgeons participated. The questionnaire consisted of four scales. Two of the scales reflected the paternalistic and consumerist poles of the liberal individualist model, one scale reflected concepts of Socratic autonomy and of procedural independence, and the fourth scale reflected ideals of risk disclosure. DISCUSSION: The Ideal Patient Autonomy Scale is a 14 item normative instrument. It is clearly distinct from the generally used psychological preference questionnaires that assess preferences for physician-patient roles.
Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Toma de Decisiones , Cirugía General , Autonomía Personal , Ética Clínica , Análisis Factorial , Humanos , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
This paper challenges the traditional assumption that descriptive and prescriptive sciences are essentially distinct by presenting a study on the implicit normativity of the production and presentation of biomedical scientific facts within evidence-based medicine. This interdisciplinary study serves as an illustration of the potential worth of the concept of implicit normativity for bioethics in general and for integrated empirical ethics research in particular. It demonstrates how both the production and presentation of scientific information in an evidence-based decision-support contain implicit presuppositions and values, which prestructure the moral environment of the clinical process of decision-making. As a consequence, the evidence-based decision support did not only support the clinical decision-making process; it also transformed it in a morally significant way. This phenomenon undermines the assumption within much of the literature on patient autonomy that information disclosure is a conditional requirement before patient autonomy even starts; patient autonomy is already influenced during the production and presentation of information. These results imply an increased responsibility of those who produce and present evidence-based facts (i.e. scientists in general and physicians in particular). The insights of this study not only involve a different focus on both theory and practice of patient autonomy and informed consent, but they also call for a broader scope of morality than does traditional empirical research in bioethics. The concept of implicit normativity within integrated empirical ethics research calls for strong cooperation between bioethicists and descriptive scientists, i.e., a cooperation that goes beyond the discipline-specific epistemic values and that takes place during all phases of the research process.