Here for the people: The argument for making clinical ethics more patient-centred.

Healthcare organizations aim to provide excellent, patient-centred care. Many departments within a hospital excel in achieving this goal, but clinical ethics service providers would benefit from becoming more patient-centred. This article considers how ethics services can add a patient-facing component to their strategic direction and work portfolio. Through a case example, suggestions to guide ethics service providers in expanding their duties and responsibilities are provided, including consultation with families and education sessions. This reframing would include clarifying the role of ethics within a healthcare organization, making services more accessible to patients, families and the community, as well as engaging with other disciplines to provide well-rounded patient care. While the work currently being done by clinical ethics services is important and ought to be continued, ethics service providers should strive to achieve the goal of improving patient experiences and directly contribute to the excellent care being provided.

The Diversity Compass: a clinical ethics support instrument for dialogues on diversity in healthcare organizations.

BACKGROUND: Increasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice. METHODS: We used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation. RESULTS: The Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur. CONCLUSIONS: The Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations.

Frequency of Perceived Conflict between Families and Clinicians at Time of Clinical Ethics Consultation in Hospitalized Children.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the frequency of conflict between clinicians and families at the time of pediatric clinical ethics consultation (CEC) and what factors are associated with the presence of conflict. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single, tertiary urban US pediatric hospital that included all hospitalized patients between January 2008 and December 2019 who received CEC. Utilizing the hospital's CEC database that requires documentation of the presence of conflict by the consultant at the time of CEC, we determined the frequency and types of perceived conflict between families and clinicians. We also assessed the bivariable association between conflict and patient age, patient- or family-reported race/ethnicity, language for care, insurance status, clinical setting, and consultant involvement. RESULTS: Perceived conflict between clinicians and families was present in 44% (91/209) of CEC. We observed a higher occurrence of clinician-family conflict within certain consult topics than others, in particular, informed consent/parental permission (69%), cultural considerations (67%), benefit/harm assessment (58%), and limitation of life-sustaining treatment (58%). We found no other significant associations between the presence of perceived conflict and patient sociodemographic factors or CEC factors. CONCLUSIONS: Conflict between healthcare teams and families appears common in CEC, particularly with certain consult topics. Further study is needed to better understand conflict types, causes of conflicts, management and mediation strategies, and outcomes.

Translational bioethics as a two-way street. Developing clinical ethics support instruments with and for healthcare practitioners.

This article discusses an approach to translational bioethics (TB) that is concerned with the adaptation-or 'translation'-of concepts, theories and methods from bioethics to practical contexts, in order to support 'non-bioethicists', such as researchers and healthcare practitioners, in dealing with their ethical issues themselves. Specifically, it goes into the participatory development of clinical ethics support (CES) instruments that respond to the needs and wishes of healthcare practitioners and that are tailored to the specific care contexts in which they are to be used. The theoretical underpinnings of this participatory approach to TB are found in hermeneutic ethics and pragmatism. As an example, the development of CURA, a low-threshold CES instrument for healthcare professionals in palliative care, is discussed. From this example, it becomes clear that TB is a two-way street. Practice may be improved by means of CES that is effectively tailored to specific end users and care contexts. The other way around, ethical theory may be enriched by means of the insights gained from engaging with practice in developing CES in a process of co-creation. TB is also a two-way street in the sense that it requires collaboration and commitment of both bioethicists and practitioners, who engage in a process of mutual learning. However, substantial challenges remain. For instance, is there a limit to the extent to which a method of moral reasoning can be adapted in order to meet the constraints of a given healthcare setting? Who is to decide, the bioethicist or the practitioners?

"Rectal Feeding"-Unethical Medical Officer Participation at CIA Secret Interrogation Facilities.

This Viewpoint discusses recently released information regarding the practice of "rectal feeding" among detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) secret prisons.

A semantic exploration: Nurse ethicist, medical ethicist, or clinical ethicist: Do distinctions matter?

Since the 1960s, it has been recognized that "medical ethics," the area of inquiry about the obligations of practitioners of medicine, is inadequate for capturing and addressing the complexities associated with modern medicine, human health, and wellbeing. Subsequently, a new specialty emerged which involved scholars and professionals from a variety of disciplines who had an interest in healthcare ethics. The name adopted is variously biomedical ethics or bioethics. The practice of bioethics in clinical settings is clinical ethics and its primary aim is to resolve patient care issues and conflicts. Nurses are among these clinical ethicists. They are drawn to the study and practice of bioethics and its applications as way to address the problems encountered in practice. A significant number are among the ranks of clinical ethicists. However, in the role of bio- or clinical ethicist, some retained the title of their original profession, calling themselves nurse ethicists, and some did not. In this article, we explore under which conditions it is permissible or preferable that one retains one's prior profession's nomenclature as a prefix to "ethicist," under which conditions it is not, and why. We emphasize the need for transparency of purpose related to titles and their possible influence on individual and social good.

Fostering moral resilience through moral case deliberation.

Moral distress forms a major threat to the well-being of healthcare professionals, and is argued to negatively impact patient care. It is associated with emotions such as anger, frustration, guilt, and anxiety. In order to effectively deal with moral distress, the concept of moral resilience is introduced as the positive capacity of an individual to sustain or restore their integrity in response to moral adversity. Interventions are needed that foster moral resilience among healthcare professionals. Ethics consultation has been proposed as such an intervention. In this paper, we add to this proposition by discussing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) as a specific form of clinical ethics support that promotes moral resilience. We argue that MCD in general may contribute to the moral resilience of healthcare professionals as it promotes moral agency. In addition, we focus on three specific MCD reflection methods: the Dilemma Method, the Aristotelian moral inquiry into emotions, and CURA, a method consisting of four main steps: Concentrate, Unrush, Reflect, and Act. In practice, all three methods are used by nurse ethicists or by nurses who received training to facilitate reflection sessions with these methods. We maintain that these methods also have specific elements that promote moral resilience. However, the Dilemma Method fosters dealing well with tragedy, the latter two promote moral resilience by including attention to emotions as part of the reflection process. We will end with discussing the importance of future empirical research on the impact of MCD on moral resilience, and of comparing MCD with other interventions that seek to mitigate moral distress and promote moral resilience.

Nursing ethics as a distinct entity within bioethics: Implications for clinical ethics practice.

The question of whether nursing ethics is a distinct entity within bioethics is an important and thought-provoking one. Though fundamental bioethical principles are appreciated and applied within the practice of nursing ethics, there exist distinct considerations which make nursing ethics a unique subfield of bioethics. In this article, we focus on the importance of relationships as a distinguishing feature of the foundation of nursing ethics, evidenced in its education, practice, and science. Next, we consider two objections to our claim of distinctiveness: first, that nursing ethics is merely an application of bioethical principles; second, that many bioethical subfields emphasize relationships. We respond by highlighting that throughout nursing education and generally in every career path that follows, the creation and nurturing of relationships is emphasized. Compassion and respect for the dignity of every patient is the framework upon which these therapeutic relationships are built. Much of the focus of nursing science rests on creating meaningful interpersonal experiences and human connection. After responding to each objection, we turn to the implications of this distinctiveness on clinical ethics practice, arguing that the strengths of our approach outweigh the limitations. The deep emphasis on creating meaningful interpersonal experiences and human connection supports a greater integration of relationships and social contexts into the evaluation of whether an action is ethically permissible, which is an important benefit in addressing the challenging human situations that patients face. Moreover, this perspective allows nurse ethicists to account for diverse and complex social structures and their influence in making ethical determinations. These strengths outweigh the limitations of potential inconsistencies between nurse and non-nurse clinical ethicists on the same service, a result we attribute to nursing ethics-and, in turn, the practice of the nurse ethicist-being framed by relationships to a larger extent than other bioethical subfields.

Perspectives on the role of the nurse ethicist.

This paper offers four contrasting perspectives on the role of the nurse ethicist from authors based in different areas of world, with different professional backgrounds and at different career stages. Each author raises questions about how to understand the role of the nurse ethicist. The first author reflects upon their career, the scope and purpose of their work, ultimately arguing that the distinction between 'nurse ethicist' and 'clinical ethicist' is largely irrelevant. The second author describes the impact and value that a nurse in an ethics role plays, highlighting the 'tacit knowledge' and 'lived experience' they bring to clinical ethics consultation. However, the second author also warns that the 'nurse ethicist' must be cautious in their approach to avoid being viewed as a resource only for nurses. The third author questions the introduction of additional professional distinctions such as 'nurse ethicist' on the basis that distinctions threaten the creation of egalitarian healthcare systems, while also acknowledging that clinical ethicists ought not strive for objective attachment in their work. In direct contrast, the final author suggests that the nurse ethicist can play a pivotal role in highlighting and addressing ethical challenges that are specific to nurses. These four short pieces raise questions and point to concepts that will be expanded upon and debated throughout this special issue of Nursing Ethics.

Nurse ethicists: Innovative resource or ideological aspiration?

In recent years, there have been growing calls for nurses to have a formal advanced practice role as nurse ethicists in hospital contexts. Initially proposed in the cultural context of the USA where nurse ethicists have long been recognised, the idea is being advocated in other judications outside of the USA such as the UK, Australia and elsewhere. Such calls are not without controversy, however. Underpinning this controversy are ongoing debates about the theoretical, methodological and political dimensions of clinical ethics support services generally, and more recently where nurses might 'fit' within such a service. In considering whether nurse ethicists ought to have a place in clinical ethics support services, a number of questions arise such as: Is such a role warranted? If so, what credentials should nurses assuming the title of 'nurse ethicist' be required to have? What standards of practice ought nurse ethicists be required to uphold? What is the ultimate role and function of nurse ethicists in hospital contexts? And in what contexts might a nurse ethicist be most useful? In this essay, brief attention will be given to addressing these questions. It will be concluded that, as a minimum, nurses wishing to assume an advanced nursing practice role as a nurse ethicist must have substantive grounding in the foundational knowledge of the disciplines of both moral philosophy and nursing ethics. They must also not lose sight of the ultimate goal of nursing ethics, notably, to promote and advance ethical nursing practice and the provision of 'good' nursing care.

Beyond the consult question: Nurse ethicists as architects of moral spaces.

Nurse Ethicists bring a unique perspective to clinical ethics consultation. This perspective provides an appreciation of ethical tensions that will exist beyond the consult question into the moral space of patient care. These tensions exist even when an ethically preferable plan of action is identified. Ethically appropriate courses of action can still lead to moral dilemmas for others. The nurse ethicist provides a lens well suited to identify and respond to these dilemmas. The nurse-patient relationship is the ethical foundation of nursing practice and this relational ontology is well suited to addressing ethical dilemmas that exist prior to and beyond the initial consult question. This paper will describe one nurse ethicist's phronetic and pragmatic approach to a clinical ethics consult elucidated through feminist ethics and systems thinking. This paper will describe the theoretical basis for this method, present a case, and describe how this consultation approach provides a rich analysis based around relationships and responsibilities that also highlights the important ethical tensions within the social structure that exists around the patient and continue after the consult question is answered.

Using Patient Quotations in Chart Notes: A Clinical Ethics Perspective.

AbstractPer the OpenNotes directive of the 21st Century Cures Act implemented in 2021, patients and their legally recognized representatives must be able to access the electronic medical record in real time. This is an opportunity for clinical ethicists and other providers to reflect on their charting practices, particularly how and when they quote patients. Although using direct quotations is common because it seems to avoid misinterpretation, it may not always be appropriate. In this article, we discuss some of the risks and benefits of quoting in the context of OpenNotes and provide suggestions for how clinical ethicists can leverage their unique position to help mitigate some of these risks and promote more reflective charting practices among the teams they work with.

Default Positions in Clinical Ethics.

AbstractDefault positions, predetermined starting points that aid in complex decision-making, are common in clinical medicine. In this article, we identify and critically examine common default positions in clinical ethics practice. Whether default positions ought to be held is an important normative question, but here we are primarily interested in the descriptive, rather than normative, properties of default positions. We argue that default positions in clinical ethics function to protect and promote important values in medicine-respect for persons, utility, and justice. Further, default positions in clinical ethics may also guard against harm. Where default positions exist, there are epistemic burdens to overturn them. The person wishing to reject the default position, rather than the person endorsing it, bears this burden. The person who bears the burden of meeting the epistemic requirements must provide evidence proportional to the degree of harm the default position protects against. Default positions that protect against significant harm impose significant epistemic requirements to overturn. This asymmetry not only makes medical decision-making more economical but also serves to promote and protect certain values. The identification and analysis of common and recognizable default positions can help to identify other default positions and the conditions under which their associated epistemic requirements are met. The article concludes with considerations of potential problems with the use of default positions in clinical ethics.

Enhancing Reciprocity, Equity and Quality of Ethics Review for Multisite Research During Public Health Crises: The Experience of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition Ethics Working Group.

In this paper we report findings from a commissioned report to the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition on approaches to streamline multinational REC review/approval during public health emergencies. As currently envisioned in the literature, a system of REC mutual recognition is theoretically possible based on shared procedural REC standards, but raises numerous concerns about perceived inequities and mistrust.

Establishing a clinical ethics support service: lessons from the first 18 months of a new Australian service - a case study.

BACKGROUND: Although the importance of clinical ethics in contemporary clinical environments is established, development of formal clinical ethics services in the Australia health system has, to date, been ad hoc. This study was designed to systematically follow and reflect upon the first 18 months of activity by a newly established service, to examine key barriers and facilitators to establishing a new service in an Australian hospital setting. METHODS: HOW THE STUDY WAS PERFORMED AND STATISTICAL TESTS USED: A qualitative case study approach was utilised. The study gathered and analysed data using observations of service committee meetings, document analysis of agendas and minutes, and semi-structured interviews with committee members to generate semantic themes. By interpreting the thematic findings in reference to national capacity building resources, this study also aimed to provide practice-based reflections for other health agencies. RESULTS: THE MAIN FINDINGS: An overarching theme identified in the data was a strong commitment to supporting clinicians facing difficult patient care decisions and navigating difficult discussions with patients and families. Another key theme was the role of the new clinical ethics support service in providing clinicians with a pathway to raise system-wide issues with the organisation Executive. While there was strong clinical engagement, consumer and community participation remained a challenge, as did unresolved governance issues and a need for clearer policy relationship between the service and the organisation. Considering these themes in relation to the national capacity building resources, the study identifies three areas likely to require ongoing development and negotiation. These are: the role of the clinical ethics support service as a link between the workforce and the Executive; the incorporation of consumers and patients; and ethical reasoning. To improve the effectiveness of the service, it is necessary to increase clarity on the service's role at the governance and policy level, as well as develop strategies for engaging consumers, patients and families. Finally, the capacity of the service to reflect on complex cases may be enhanced through explicit discussions of various different ethical frameworks and ways of deliberating.

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.

Responding to the Call to Meaningfully Assess Institutional Review Board Effectiveness.

This Viewpoint discusses the difficult task of creating a stakeholder-driven, evidence-based approach to assessing institutional review board effectiveness beyond regulatory compliance.

Ethical Issues Referred to Clinical Ethics Support at a University Hospital in Korea: Three-Year Experience After Enforcement of Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act.

BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics support is a form of preventive ethics aimed at mediating ethics-related conflicts and managing ethical issues arising in the healthcare setting. However, limited evidence exists regarding the specific ethical issues in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore the diverse ethical issues of cases referred to clinical ethics support after the new legislation on hospice palliative care and end-of-life decision-making was implemented in Korea in 2018. METHODS: A retrospective study of cases referred to clinical ethics support at a university hospital in Korea from February 2018 to February 2021 was conducted. The ethical issues at the time of referral were analyzed via qualitative content analysis of the ethics consultation-related documents. RESULTS: A total of 60 cases of 57 patients were included in the study, of whom 52.6% were men and 56.1% were older than 60 years of age. The majority of cases (80%) comprised patients from the intensive care unit. One-third of the patients were judged as being at the end-of-life stage. The most frequent ethical categories were identified as goals of care/treatment (78.3%), decision-making (75%), relationship (41.7%), and end-of-life issues (31.7%). More specifically, best interests (71.7%), benefits and burdens/harms (61.7%), refusal (53.3%), and surrogate decision-making (33.3%), followed by withholding or withdrawal (28.3%) were the most frequent ethical issues reported, which became diversified by year. In addition, the ethical issues appeared to differ by age group and judgment of the end-of-life stage. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study expand the current understanding of the diverse ethical issues including decision-making and goals of care/treatment that have been referred to clinical ethics support since the enforcement of the new legislation in Korea. This study suggests a need for further research on the longitudinal exploration of ethical issues and implementation of clinical ethics support in multiple healthcare centers.