Implementing ethics reflection groups in hospitals: an action research study evaluating barriers and promotors.

BACKGROUND: An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a range of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the implementation process of interdisciplinary ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ERG implementation to include both psychiatric and general hospital departments. METHODS: The implementation and evaluation strategies are inspired by action research, using a qualitative approach and systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers. RESULTS: The implementation process was influenced by both structural factors and factors related to clinicians having different values, interests and experiences. Structural barriers and promotors in the process to implement ERG included the following sub-categories: Organizational factors, recruitment and training of ethics facilitators, the deliberation model, planning and recruitment of participants to the ERGs, the support of the ward managers and the project group. Barriers and promotors found among clinicians included the following sub-categories: Expectations and pre-understandings of ERGs, understandings of a physician's job, challenges experienced by ethics facilitators. At the end of the study, when it was decided that the ERGs should be continued, the implementation strategies were remodeled by the participants to meet new challenges. CONCLUSION: The study of ERG implementation identified important structural and professional barriers and promotors that are likely to be relevant to anyone wanting to implement ethics support services across various types of healthcare services.

Hospital ethics reflection groups: a learning and development resource for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a number of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the significance of ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. METHODS: This is a qualitative action research study, including systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers. Short written descriptions of the ethical challenges presented in the ERGs also informed the analysis of significance. RESULTS: A recurring ethical challenge for clinicians, in a total of 63 cases described and assessed in 3 ethical reflection groups, is to strike a balance between respect for patient autonomy, paternalistic responsibility, professional responsibilities and institutional values. Both in psychiatric and general hospital departments, the study participants report a positive impact of ERG, which can be divided into three categories: 1) Significance for patients, 2) Significance for clinicians, and 3) Significance for ward managers. In wards characterized by short-time patient admissions, the cases assessed were retrospective and the beneficiaries of improved dialogue mainly future patients rather than the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge presented. In wards with longer admissions, the patients concerned also benefitted from the dialogue in the ERG. CONCLUSION: This study indicates a positive significance and impact of ERGs; constituting an interdisciplinary learning resource for clinicians, creating significance for themselves, the ward managers and the organization. By introducing specific examples, this study indicates that ERGs have significance for the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge, but mostly indirectly through learning among clinicians and development of clinical practice. More research is needed to further investigate the impact of ERGs seen from the perspectives of patients and relatives.

Actual implementation of sick children's rights in Italian pediatric units: a descriptive study based on nurses' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Several charters of rights have been issued in Europe to solemnly proclaim the rights of children during their hospital stay. However, notwithstanding such general declarations, the actual implementation of hospitalized children's rights is unclear. The purpose of this study was to understand to which extent such rights, as established by the two main existing charters of rights, are actually implemented and respected in Italian pediatric hospitals and the pediatric units of Italian general hospitals, as perceived by the nurses working in them. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. A 12-item online questionnaire was set up and an invitation was sent by email to Italian pediatric nurses using professional mailing lists and social networks. Responders were asked to score to what extent each right is respected in their hospital using a numeric scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). RESULTS: 536 questionnaires were returned. The best implemented right is the right of children to have their mothers with them (mean score 4.47). The least respected one is the right of children to express their opinion about care (mean 3.01). Other rights considered were the right to play (4.29), the right to be informed (3.95), the right to the respect of privacy (3.75), the right to be hospitalized with peers (3.39), the right not to experience pain ever (3.41), and the right to school (3.07). According to the majority of nurses, the most important is the right to pain relief. Significant differences in the implementation of rights were found between areas of Italy and between pediatric hospitals and pediatric units of general hospitals. CONCLUSION: According to the perception of pediatric nurses, the implementation of the rights of hospitalized children in Italian pediatrics units is still limited.

Examining patient trust towards physicians between clinical departments in a Chinese hospital.

The purpose of this cross-sectional survey study is to quantitatively examine the differences in patient trust towards physicians between four different clinical departments in a Chinese hospital. Using a validated modified Chinese version of the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale, we measured patient trust in each department, and also collected data on patient demographics. A total of 436 patients or family members were surveyed in the departments of emergency medicine, pediatrics, cardiology, and orthopedic surgery. Significant differences were found between the departments, especially between pediatrics (trust score 43.23, range 11-50) and emergency medicine and cardiology (trust scores 45.29 and 45.79, respectively with range of 11-50). The average total score across all four departments was 44.72. There are indications that specifically comparing departments, such as patient demographics or department structure, could be helpful in tailoring patient care to improve physician-patient relationships.

Waiting lists for radiation therapy: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Why waiting lists arise and how to address them remains unclear, and an improved understanding of these waiting list "dynamics" could lead to better management. The purpose of this study is to understand how the current shortage in radiation therapy in Ontario developed; the implications of prolonged waits; who is held accountable for managing such delays; and short, intermediate, and long-term solutions. METHODS: A case study of the radiation therapy shortage in 1998-99 at Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Relevant documents were collected; semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with ten administrators, health care workers, and patients were conducted, audio-taped and transcribed; and relevant meetings were observed. RESULTS: The radiation therapy shortage arose from a complex interplay of factors including: rising cancer incidence rates; broadening indications for radiation therapy; human resources management issues; government funding decisions; and responsiveness to previous planning recommendations. Implications of delays include poorer cancer control rates; patient suffering; and strained doctor-patient relationships. An incompatible relationship exists between moral responsibility, borne by government, and legal liability, borne by physicians. Short-term solutions include re-referral to centers with available resources; long-term solutions include training and recruiting health care workers, improving workload standards, increasing compensation, and making changes to the funding formula. CONCLUSION: Human resource planning plays a critical role in the causes and solutions of waiting lists. Waiting lists have harsh implications for patients. Accountability relationships require realignment.

Equity in waiting times for two surgical specialties: a case study at a hospital in the North West of England.

BACKGROUND: Reducing inequalities in access to the National Health Service is a key government priority. This study investigates the extent to which equitable access is achieved in one routinely administered hospital waiting list system. METHODS: Using hospital episode statistics for one hospital in the North West of England, a retrospective study of waiting times to surgery was undertaken for two surgical specialties (Orthopaedics and Ophthalmology). Participants were 4306 waiting list patients (elective, first episodes) living within Health Authority boundaries, treated within the two specialties between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001. Multiple logistic regression analysis of the relationship between waiting times and age, gender, ethnicity and deprivation status was undertaken. Main outcome measures were length of waiting time between being referred to the waiting list and treatment, and odds ratios for being associated with longer than median waiting times by age, gender, ethnicity and deprivation. RESULTS: For ophthalmology, the median waiting time was 140 days. After adjustment, older people had an odds ratio (OR) of 1.64 (95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 1.42-1.89), patients in deprived areas an OR of 1.29 (95 per cent CI 1.08-1.55) and men an OR of 0.79 (95 per cent CI 0.68-0.92) for having longer than median waiting times. No significant association was found between waiting times and ethnicity. For orthopaedics, the median waiting time was 129 days, and there were no significant differences in waiting times according to age, gender, ethnicity or deprivation. CONCLUSION: Routine waiting list systems are not always delivered equitably. For one specialty, female, older and deprived patients were significantly more likely to experience longer than average waits. Potential explanations and implications for policy-makers are considered.