[Psy le comité was told to us]. / Psy le comité nous était conté.

Speaking on behalf of others is no easy task. When 30 members of a psychiatric hospital's ethics committee rely on three of them to explain its functions and roles to neophytes, and to put into words what the committee represents in their eyes, the mission is a delicate one. We have to remain as faithful to our own thinking as we are to the spirit of the group. We will try to answer these questions as best we can, to shed light on the origins, missions and specific features of an ethics committee in a psychiatric hospital, without betraying our own thinking or that of our colleagues.

Ethical Issues in Using Behavior Contracts to Manage the "Difficult" Patient and Family.

Long used as a tool for medical compliance and adhering to treatment plans, behavior contracts have made their way into the in-patient healthcare setting as a way to manage the "difficult" patient and family. The use of this tool is even being adopted by healthcare ethics consultants (HECs) in US hospitals as part of their work in navigating conflict at the bedside. Anecdotal evidence of their increasing popularity among clinical ethicists, for example, can be found at professional bioethics meetings and conversations and idea-sharing among practitioners on HEC social media. While there are a handful of papers gesturing toward a bioethical critique of behavior contracts of various types, the use of behavior contracts in the context of interpersonal conflict has not been vetted by bioethicists to determine their ethical legitimacy or efficacy. In this paper, we highlight a set of ethical concerns that we believe must be addressed before continuing or widespread implementation of behavior contracts to manage the "difficult" patient or family.

Clinical Ethics Committee in an Oncological Research Hospital: two-years Report.

RESEARCH QUESTION AND AIM: Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) aim to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organizations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice. In 2020, a CEC was established in an Oncology Research Hospital in the North of Italy. This paper describes the development process and the activities performed 20 months from the CEC's implementation, to increase knowledge about CEC's implementation strategy. RESEARCH DESIGN: We collected quantitative data related to number and characteristics of CEC activities carried out from October 2020 to June 2022 using the CEC internal database. Data were reported descriptively and compared with data from the literature to provide a complete overview of the CEC's development and implementation process. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: The study has been conducted at the local health authority (LHA) of Reggio Emilia. It is a report of the activities provided by the CEC, where no HPs or patients were involved. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The report is part of a larger study named EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC), which has been approved by the Local Ethics Committee (AUSLRE Protocollo n° 2022/0026554 of 24/02/2022). EvaCEC is also the first author's PhD project. FINDINGS: In total, the CEC performed 7 ethics consultations (EC), published three policies related to particular ethical questions of clinical and organizational practice, provided one educational online course on ethics consultation targeting employed HPs, and promoted a specific dissemination process among the different departments of the LHA. According to our results, the CEC widely fulfilled the standard threefold set of clinical ethics support services tasks (namely, ethics consultation, ethics education, and policy development), but further investigations are needed to evaluate the CEC's impact on clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Our findings may increase knowledge regarding the composition, role, and tasks of a CEC in an Italian setting, informing future strategies and efforts to regulate these institutions officially.

Psychiatric Hospital Ethics Committee Discussions Over a Span of Nearly Three Decades.

Various types of health settings use clinical ethics committees (CEC) to deal with the ethical issues that confront both healthcare providers and their patients. Although these committees are now more common than ever, changes in the content of ethical dilemmas through the years is still a relatively unexplored area of research. The current study examines the major topics brought to the CEC of a psychiatric hospital in Israel and explores whether there were changes in their frequency across nearly three decades. The present paper reports on a thematic analysis of the written verbatim transcripts from 466 ethical topics brought to the CEC between the years 1991 and 2016. The following major topics related to ethical dilemmas were identified: confidentiality (30%), patient autonomy (23%), health records (14%), dual relationship (12%), allocation of resources (11%), inappropriate professional and personal conduct (9%), and multicultural sensitivity (1%). Topics related to confidentiality increased significantly over the years, as did inappropriate professional and personal conduct. In addition, the analysis showed that the content of the ethical cases and the resolutions suggested by the CEC also varied over the years. In conclusion, although most ethical topics have remained relatively stable over time, the discourse around them has evolved, requiring a dynamic assessment and reflection by the mental health practitioners serving as members of a CEC.

Establishing Clinical Ethics Committees in Primary Care: A Study from Norwegian Municipal Care.

Would primary care services benefit from the aid of a clinical ethics committee (CEC)? The implementation of CECs in primary care in four Norwegian municipalities was supported and their activities followed for 2.5 years. In this study, the CECs' structure and activities are described, with special emphasis on what characterizes the cases they have discussed. In total, the four CECs discussed 54 cases from primary care services, with the four most common topics being patient autonomy, competence and coercion; professionalism; cooperation and disagreement with next of kin; and priority setting, resource use and quality. Nursing homes and home care were the primary care services most often involved. Next of kin were present in 10 case deliberations, whereas patients were never present. The investigation indicates that it might be feasible for new CECs to attain a high level of activity including case deliberations within the time frame. It also confirms that significant, characteristic and complex moral problems arise in primary care services.

Hospital chaplains as ethical consultants in making difficult medical decisions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Few Polish hospitals have Hospital Ethics Committee (HECs) and the services are not always adequate. In this situation, the role of HECs, in providing, among others, ethical advice on the discontinuation of persistent therapies, may be taken over by other entities. The aim of our research was to investigate, how often and on what issues hospital chaplains are asked for ethical advice in reaching difficult medical decisions. METHODS: A survey of 100 Roman Catholic chaplains was conducted, that is, at least 10% of all chaplains currently working in Polish hospitals. RESULTS: Of the participants, 29% confirmed receiving requests for advice in making a morally difficult medical decision. Receiving this type of request was not conditional on the place of their service, duration of their pastoral mission or HEC membership. The largest group of chaplains (21%) encounter questions concerning the ethical dilemmas associated with discontinuing persistent therapy. Patients and their families most often raise issues related to the methods of birth control, and the medical staff raise the issue of termination of pregnancy-as reported by 9% and 15% of chaplains, respectively. Most of the chaplains asked for help (79%) experience a deficit of specialist knowledge in the area of medicine or ethics. CONCLUSIONS: In order to improve the quality of ethical consultations in Polish hospitals, in addition to further development of HECs, it is postulated to develop a system for bioethical education of chaplains.

Ethics Consultation in U.S. Hospitals: Opinions of Ethics Practitioners.

To design effective strategies to improve ethics consultation (EC) practices, it is important to understand the views of ethics practitioners. Previous U.S. studies of ethics practitioners have overrepresented the views of academic bioethicists. To help inform EC improvement efforts, we surveyed a random stratified sample of U.S. hospitals, examining ethics practitioners' opinions on EC in general, on their own EC service, on strategies to improve EC, and on ASBH practice standards. Respondents across all categories of hospitals had very positive perceptions of their own ethics consultation service (ECS) and few concerns about quality. Our findings suggest that the ethics-related needs of small, rural, non-teaching hospitals may be very different from those of academic medical centers, and therefore, different approaches to addressing ethical issues might be warranted.

The Freelance Ethics Consultant: Practice Model and Opportunities.

The first ethicists of the 1970s paved the way for the three most familiar models of clinical ethics consultation: (1) a single consultant, (2) a member of a hospital ethics committee, and (3) a member of a subcommittee of a hospital ethics committee. Within the single consultant model there are (A) the lone ethicist (a member of hospital staff, working alone when consulting) and (B) the independent ethicist (a freelance, external consultant, working alone). This article discusses the structure and opportunities offered by the freelance, independent ethicist model, and provides guidance for those who employ freelance, independent ethicists, as well as guidance for ethicists who are considering adopting this practice model.

[Relevance of the Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) for Clinical Staff of a Specialized Neurological Clinic]. / Bedeutung des Klinischen Ethikkomitees (KEKs) für Klinikmitarbeiter einer neurologischen Fachklinik.

BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics committees (CECs) have been implemented in German clinics since the 1990s. Besides problems with the integration into clinical routines, CECs result in an enrichment and relief for employees and relatives. Investigating the current status of CECs in specialized neurological clinics is crucial because changes in therapy goals towards palliative care are often requested and the treatment team is sometimes overwhelmed with clarifying the presumed patient's wishes. So far, however, there have been no studies that have examined the work of the CEC and its importance for clinical staff in specialized neurological clinics. METHOD: In a single-center, prospective observational study, 161 clinic employees with contact to the patients and 10 members of the CEC were asked about their previous experiences and impressions with and in the CEC. At the same time, 31 patients were retrospectively identified for whom an ethical case consultation was carried out by the CEC in 2019. A qualitative evaluation was carried out for the protocols of the ethical case counseling. RESULTS: 56% of the clinic employees and 90% of the CEC members considered the CEC as enrichment for the clinic. Although more than a third of the clinic employees evaluated the CEC as a relief during difficult ethical decisions, the presence of the CEC in particular for relatives and employees is described as insufficient. In the majority, a reduction in the hierarchy by the CEC was confirmed by the members of the CEC (70%), whereas the majority of the clinic employees increasingly denied this (55%). The CEC recommendation was implemented in 94% of the cases. CONCLUSION: A central problem in working with and within a CEC is maybe the lack of presence and information for employees. Due to this lack of presence, the CEC is not sufficiently visible in everyday clinical practice.

[Analysis of a clinical ethics committee activities at a general hospital]. / Experiencia del Comité de Ética Asistencial del Hospital Carlos van Buren entre los años 2007-2020.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Ethics Committees are deliberative groups whose main functions are to assess cases with ethical-clinical conflicts, to generate institutional protocols for preventive purposes, and to train health teams. AIM: To analyze the activity of a clinical ethics committee of a general hospital in the period 2007-2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all session records, annual reports, case resolution and documents generated by the Clinical Ethics Committee of Carlos van Buren Hospital in Valparaíso, Chile, between 2007 and 2020, was carried out. RESULTS: On average, 12 cases are analyzed per year. Sixty percent correspond to requests from pediatric units and in 78% of these cases there was at least one neurological disease. In 62% of cases, the main ethical dilemma was adequacy of therapeutic effort, followed by dilemmas related to the exercise of autonomy in 18.2%. In education, two courses are identified aimed to doctors, residents, and other members of the health team. Regarding normative functions, several documents were generated at the request of the Hospital management or in different clinical situations. During COVID-19 pandemia, the active role of the committee was linked to the three main functions, namely evaluating cases, participating in morbidity and mortality meetings for preventive purposes, and issuing guidelines and recommendations for action. The active participation of Pediatric Neurology residents in the Committee, for educational and administrative purposes, stands out. CONCLUSIONS: The three main functions described for the ethics committees were exerted by this Committee during the evaluated period. The impact of our recommendations remain to be objectively evaluated.

Clinical ethics committees in nursing homes: what good can they do? Analysis of a single case consultation.

BACKGROUND: Ought nursing homes to establish clinical ethics committees (CECs)? An answer to this question must begin with an understanding of how a clinical ethics committee might be beneficial in a nursing home context - to patients, next of kin, professionals, managers, and the institution. With the present article, we aim to contribute to such an understanding. AIM: We ask, in which ways can clinical ethics committees be helpful to stakeholders in a nursing home context? We describe in depth a clinical ethics committee case consultation deemed successful by stakeholders, then reflect on how it was helpful. RESEARCH DESIGN: Case study using the clinical ethics committee's written case report and self-evaluation form, and two research interviews, as data. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: The nursing home's ward manager and the patient's son participated in research interviews. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Data were collected as part of an implementation study. Clinical ethics committee members and interviewed stakeholders consented to study participation, and also gave specific approval for the publication of the present article. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Six different roles played by the clinical ethics committee in the case consultation are described: analyst, advisor, support, moderator, builder of consensus and trust, and disseminator. DISCUSSION: The case study indicates that clinical ethics committees might sometimes be of help to stakeholders in moral challenges in nursing homes. CONCLUSIONS: Demanding moral challenges arise in the nursing home setting. More research is needed to examine whether clinical ethics committees might be suitable as ethics support structures in nursing homes and community care.

Multidisciplinary support for ethics deliberations during the first COVID wave.

BACKGROUND: The first COVID-19 wave started in February 2020 in France. The influx of patients requiring emergency care and high-level technicity led healthcare professionals to fear saturation of available care. In that context, the multidisciplinary Ethics-Support Cell (EST) was created to help medical teams consider the decisions that could potentially be sources of ethical dilemmas. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to prospectively collect information on requests for EST assistance from 23 March to 9 May 2020. The secondary aim was to describe the Cell's functions during that period. RESEARCH DESIGN: This observational, real-time study of requests for Cell consultations concerned ethical dilemmas arising during a public health crisis. The EST created a grid to collect relevant information (clinical, patient's/designated representative's preferences and ethical principles strained by the situation), thereby assuring that each EST asked the same questions, in the same order. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Only our university hospital's clinicians could request EST intervention. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The hospital Research Ethics Committee approved this study (no. CER-2020-107). The patient, his/her family, or designated representative was informed of this ethics consultation and most met with EST members, which enabled them to express their preferences and/or opposition. FINDINGS/RESULTS: 33 requests (patients' mean age: 80.8 years; 29 had COVID-19: 24 with dyspnea, 30 with comorbidities). 17 Emergency Department solicitations concerned ICU admission, without reference to resource constraints; others addressed therapeutic proportionality dilemmas. DISCUSSION: Intervention-request motives concerned limited resources and treatment intensity. Management revolved around three axes: the treatment option most appropriate for the patient, the feasibility of implementation, and dignified care for the patient. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 crisis forced hospitals to envisage prioritization of ICU access. Established decision-making criteria and protocols do not enable healthcare professionals to escape ethical dilemmas. That acknowledgement highlights ethical risks, enhances the added-value of nursing and encourages all players to be vigilant to pursue collective deliberations to achieve clear and transparent decisions.

Challenging misconceptions about clinical ethics support during COVID-19 and beyond: a legal update and future considerations.

The pace of change and, indeed, the sheer number of clinical ethics committees (not to be confused with research ethics committees) has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Committees were formed to support healthcare professionals and to operationalise, interpret and compensate for gaps in national and professional guidance. But as the role of clinical ethics support becomes more prominent and visible, it becomes ever more important to address gaps in the support structure and misconceptions as to role and remit. The recent case of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v MX, FX and X ([2020] EWHC 1958 (Fam), [21]-[23] and [58]) has highlighted the importance of patient/family representation at clinical ethics committee meetings. The court viewed these meetings as making decisions about such treatment. We argue that this misunderstands the role of ethics support, with treatment decisions remaining with the clinical team and those providing their consent. The considered review by clinical ethics committees of the moral issues surrounding complex treatment decisions is not a matter of determining a single ethical course of action. In this article, we consider current legal understandings of clinical ethics committees, explore current concepts of ethics support and suggest how they may evolve, considering the various mechanisms of the inclusion of patients and their representatives in ethics meetings which is not standard in the UK.

Health care ethics programs in U.S. Hospitals: results from a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: As hospitals have grown more complex, the ethical concerns they confront have grown correspondingly complicated. Many hospitals have consequently developed health care ethics programs (HCEPs) that include far more than ethics consultation services alone. Yet systematic research on these programs is lacking. METHODS: Based on a national, cross-sectional survey of a stratified sample of 600 US hospitals, we report on the prevalence, scope, activities, staffing, workload, financial compensation, and greatest challenges facing HCEPs. RESULTS: Among 372 hospitals whose informants responded to an online survey, 97% of hospitals have HCEPs. Their scope includes clinical ethics functions in virtually all hospitals, but includes other functions in far fewer hospitals: ethical leadership (35.7%), regulatory compliance (29.0%), business ethics (26.2%), and research ethics (12.6%). HCEPs are responsible for providing ongoing ethics education to various target audiences including all staff (77.0%), nurses (59.9%), staff physicians (49.0%), hospital leadership (44.2%), medical residents (20.3%) and the community/general public (18.4%). HCEPs staff are most commonly involved in policy work through review of existing policies but are less often involved in development of new policies. HCEPs have an ethics representative in executive leadership in 80.5% of hospitals, have representation on other hospital committees in 40.7%, are actively engaged in community outreach in 22.6%, and lead large-scale ethics quality improvement initiatives in 17.7%. In general, major teaching hospitals and urban hospitals have the most highly integrated ethics programs with the broadest scope and greatest number of activities. Larger hospitals, academically affiliated hospitals, and urban hospitals have significantly more individuals performing HCEP work and significantly more individuals receiving financial compensation specifically for that work. Overall, the most common greatest challenge facing HCEPs is resource shortages, whereas underutilization is the most common greatest challenge for hospitals with fewer than 100 beds. Respondents' strategies for managing challenges include staff training and additional funds. CONCLUSIONS: While this study must be cautiously interpreted due to its limitations, the findings may be useful for understanding the characteristics of HCEPs in US hospitals and the factors associated with these characteristics. This information may contribute to exploring ways to strengthen HCEPs.

COVID-19 underscores the important role of Clinical Ethics Committees in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified pre-existing challenges in healthcare in Africa. Long-standing health inequities, embedded in the continent over centuries, have been laid bare and have raised complex ethical dilemmas. While there are very few clinical ethics committees (CECs) in Africa, the demand for such services exists and has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The views of African healthcare professionals or bioethicists on the role of CECs in Africa have not been explored or documented previously. In this study, we aim to explore such perspectives, as well as the challenges preventing the establishment of CECs in Africa. METHODS: Twenty healthcare professionals and bioethicists from Africa participated in this qualitative study that utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. Themes were identified through thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended responses. RESULTS: Kenya and South Africa are the only countries on the continent with formal established CECs. The following themes emerged from this qualitative study: (1) Lack of formal CECs and resolution of ethical dilemmas; (2) Role of CECs during COVID-19; (3) Ethical dilemmas presented to CECs pre-COVID-19; (4) Lack of awareness of CECs; (5) Lack of qualified bioethicists or clinical ethicists; (6) Limited resources to establish CECs; (7) Creating interest in CECs and networking. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the importance of clinical ethics education among African HCPs and bioethicists, more so now when COVID-19 has posed a host of clinical and ethical challenges to public and private healthcare systems. The challenges and barriers identified will inform the establishment of CECs or clinical ethics consultation services (CESs) in the region. The study results have triggered an idea for the creation of a network of African CECs.

Profile of hospital transplant ethics committees in the Philippines.

In the Philippines, all transplant centers are mandated by the Department of Health (DOH) to have a Hospital Transplant Ethics Committee (HTEC) to ensure that donations are altruistic, voluntary and free of coercion/commercial transactions. This study was undertaken primarily to describe the organizational and functional profile of existing HTECs and identify areas for improvement. This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. There was variation in their logistical arrangements (support from hospital, filing systems, office spaces), operations (length and frequency of meetings, number of referrals) and membership (composition, qualifications, occupation, training). The approval rate for donor-recipient pairs is high with the majority of cases made by living non-related donors. Appropriate reasons were cited for rejection. The perception of HTECs is that they are competent and confident in their decision-making. However, there is a need to standardize HTEC composition, provide operating procedures and additional training which can be done by the DOH.

Perspectives on the Effectiveness of a Medical Futility Policy.

BACKGROUND: The principal aim of this study was to investigate the function and effectiveness of an institutional policy that outlines a procedure to limit medically futile interventions. We were interested in the attitudes and opinions of careproviders and the members of the Yale New Haven Hospital Ethics Committee that use this policy, the Conscientious Practice Policy (CPP), to address questions on appropriate interventions in the setting of medical futility. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted three focus groups of members of the Yale New Haven Hospital Ethics Committee and critical care physicians, asking participants questions concerning their use of the Yale New Haven Hospital's policy on limiting futile interventions. Focus group transcript results were coded into common themes using a conventional analysis approach. RESULTS: The overarching finding was that the CPP had various levels of interpretation that prevented its effective and consistent use. This was supported by the four main themes from the focus groups: (1) Mixed perceptions regarding communication between careproviders and family members and surrogates before the CPP was invoked contributed to complexity in decision making. (2) It was ineffective to use an ethics consultation to decide whether or not to invoke the CPP. (3) It was necessary to address moral distress in the absence of a policy. (4) The use of the CPP was inconsistent for different patients, based on the degree to which family members and surrogates persisted in their resistance to limiting medically futile interventions, careproviders' comfort with directly making decisions, and bias towards members of certain groups. CONCLUSION: The CPP, as it has been used at the Yale New Haven Hospital, has been ineffective in rationally, fairly, and consistently resolving conflicts regarding the appropriateness of ending medically futile interventions. The CPP, as well as similar policies at other institutions, may benefit from restructuring the policy to more closely align with policies at other institutions where outcomes have been more successful.

Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review.

Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs), as distinct from Research Ethics Committees, were originally established with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in managing controversial clinical ethical issues. However, it is still unclear whether they manage to accomplish this task and what is their impact on clinical practice. This systematic review aims to collect available assessments of CECs' performance as reported in literature, in order to evaluate CECs' effectiveness. We retrieved all literature published up to November 2019 in six databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Philosopher's Index, Embase and Web of Science), following PRISMA guidelines. We included only articles specifically addressing CECs and providing any form of CECs performance assessment. Twenty-nine articles were included. Ethics consultation was the most evaluated of CECs' functions. We did not find standardized tools for measuring CECs' efficacy, but 33% of studies considered "user satisfaction" as an indicator, with 94% of them reporting an average positive perception of CECs' impact. Changes in patient treatment and a decrease of moral distress in health personnel were reported as additional outcomes of ethics consultation. The highly diverse ways by which CECs carry out their activities make CECs' evaluation difficult. The adoption of shared criteria would be desirable to provide a reliable answer to the question about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, in general both users and providers consider CECs as helpful, relevant to their work, able to improve the quality of care. Their main function is ethics consultation, while less attention seems to be devoted to bioethics education and policy formation.

Making the (Business) Case for Clinical Ethics Support in the UK.

This paper provides a series of reflections on making the case to senior leaders for the introduction of clinical ethics support services within a UK hospital Trust at a time when clinical ethics committees are dwindling in the UK. The paper provides key considerations for those building a (business) case for clinical ethics support within hospitals by drawing upon published academic literature, and key reports from governmental and professional bodies. We also include extracts from documents relating to, and annual reports of, existing clinical ethics support within UK hospitals, as well as extracts from our own proposal submitted to the Trust Board. We aim for this paper to support other ethicists and/or health care staff contemplating introducing clinical ethics support into hospitals, to facilitate the process of making the case for clinical ethics support, and to contribute to the key debates in the literature around clinical ethics support. We conclude that there is a real need for investment in clinical ethics in the UK in order to build the evidence base required to support the wider introduction of clinical ethics support into UK hospitals. Furthermore, our perceptions of the purpose of, and perceived needs met through, clinical ethics support needs to shift to one of hospitals investing in their staff. Finally, we raise concerns over the optional nature of clinical ethics support available to practitioners within UK hospitals.

Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical ethics committees (CECs) support and enhance communication and complex decision making, educate healthcare professionals and the public on ethical matters and maintain standards of care. However, a consistent approach to training members of CECs is lacking. A systematic scoping review was conducted to evaluate prevailing CEC training curricula to guide the design of an evidence-based approach. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was used to evaluate prevailing accounts of CEC training published in six databases. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach was adopted to thematically analyse data across different healthcare and educational settings. RESULTS: 7370 abstracts were identified, 92 full-text articles were reviewed and 55 articles were thematically analysed to reveal four themes: the design, pedagogy, content and assessment of CEC curricula. CONCLUSION: Few curricula employ consistent approaches to training. Many programmes fail to provide CEC trainees with sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to meet required competencies. Most programmes do not inculcate prevailing sociocultural, research, clinical and educational considerations into training processes nor provide longitudinal support for CEC trainees. Most CEC training programmes are not supported by host institutions threatening the sustainability of the programme and compromising effective assessment and longitudinal support of CEC trainees. While further reviews are required, this review underlines the need for host organisations to support and oversee a socioculturally appropriate ethically sensitive, clinically relevant longitudinal training, assessment and support process for CEC trainees if CECs are to meet their roles effectively.