Content review of pediatric ethics consultations at a cancer center.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Ethical challenges in pediatric oncology arise at every stage of illness. However, there are sparse data on the content of and reason for ethics consultations in the field. We sought to evaluate the content and characteristics of ethics consultations in pediatric patients at a cancer center. DESIGN/METHODS: We retrospectively identified ethics consultations performed for patients diagnosed with cancer at ≤21 years of age who were treated in the Department of Pediatrics from 2007 to 2017. Using an established coding schema, two independent reviewers analyzed the content of ethics consultation notes and identified core ethical issues and relevant contextual issues. Demographic, clinical, and consultation-specific data were also collected. RESULTS: Thirty-five consultations were performed for 32 unique patients. The most commonly identified ethical issues were obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (29%) and resuscitation preferences (26%). Communication conflicts were the most commonly identified contextual issue (40%). There were two themes that emerged repeatedly but were not a part of the original coding schema-four consultations (11%) that involved physicians questioning their obligation to provide potentially toxic treatment in the setting of poor patient/parent compliance, and two consultations (6%) related to complex risk-benefit analysis in the setting of an invasive procedure with uncertain benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric ethics consultations are infrequent at this specialty cancer hospital. Ethical issues focused on treatment and end-of-life care and included a diversity of communication conflicts.

EsPRit: ethics committee proposals for Long Term Medical Data Registries in rapidly evolving research fields - a future-proof best practice approach.

BACKGROUND: Long-term data collection is a challenging task in the domain of medical research. Many effects in medicine require long periods of time to become traceable e.g. the development of secondary malignancies based on a given radiotherapeutic treatment of the primary disease. Nevertheless, long-term studies often suffer from an initial lack of available information, thus disallowing a standardized approach for their approval by the ethics committee. This is due to several factors, such as the lack of existing case report forms or an explorative research approach in which data elements may change over time. In connection with current medical research and the ongoing digitalization in medicine, Long Term Medical Data Registries (MDR-LT) have become an important means of collecting and analyzing study data. As with any clinical study, ethical aspects must be taken into account when setting up such registries. This work addresses the problem of creating a valid, high-quality ethics committee proposal for medical registries by suggesting groups of tasks (building blocks), information sources and appropriate methods for collecting and analyzing the information, as well as a process model to compile an ethics committee proposal (EsPRit). METHODS: To derive the building blocks and associated methods software and requirements engineering approaches were utilized. Furthermore, a process-oriented approach was chosen, as information required in the creating process of ethics committee proposals remain unknown in the beginning of planning an MDR-LT. Here, we derived the needed steps from medical product certification. This was done as the medical product certification itself also communicates a process-oriented approach rather than merely focusing on content. A proposal was created for validation and inspection of applicability by using the proposed building blocks. The proposed best practice was tested and refined within SEMPER (Secondary Malignoma - Prospective Evaluation of the Radiotherapeutics dose distribution as the cause for induction) as a case study. RESULTS: The proposed building blocks cover the topics of "Context Analysis", "Requirements Analysis", "Requirements Validation", "Electronic Case Report (eCRF) Design" and "Overall Concept Creation". Additional methods are attached with regards to each topic. The goals of each block can be met by applying those methods. The proposed methods are proven methods as applied in e.g. existing Medical Data Registry projects, as well as in software or requirements engineering. CONCLUSION: Several building blocks and attached methods could be identified in the creation of a generic ethics committee proposal. Hence, an Ethics Committee can make informed decisions on the suggested study via said blocks, using the suggested methods such as "Defining Clinical Questions" within the Context Analysis. The study creators have to confirm that they adhere to the proposed procedure within the ethic proposal statement. Additional existing Medical Data Registry projects can be compared to EsPRit for conformity to the proposed procedure. This allows for the identification of gaps, which can lead to amendments requested by the ethics committee.

A Review of the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry Process, Ankara Chamber of Medicine, Turkey.

The aim of this study is to review the inquiry process used in scientific misconduct cases in the Ankara Chamber of Medicine between the years 1998 and 2012. The violations of the "Disciplinary Regulations of the Turkish Medical Association" have been examined by keeping the names of the people, institutions, associations and journals secret. In total, 31 files have been studied and 11 of these files have been identified as related to scientific misconduct. The methods of inquiry, the decisions about the need for an investigation process, the types of scientific misconduct, and the adjudication processes have all been reported. Furthermore, the motives of researchers who made allegations, the study approaches of investigators, and the objections to the decisions about guilt and innocence have also been examined. Based on the findings obtained, the reasons for scientific misconduct and the distribution of responsibilities among the people in the inquiry process have been discussed. A major conclusion is the need to standardize the process of conducting inquiries about scientific misconduct cases for the regional chambers of medicine in Turkey.

[The impact of the EU Regulation 536/2014 on the tasks and functioning of ethics committees in Germany]. / Die EU-Verordnung 536/2014 und ihr Einfluss auf die Aufgaben und Arbeitsweisen der Ethikkommissionen in Deutschland.

The EU Clinical Trial Regulation 536/2014 (CTR) and its implementation in Germany led to substantial changes of the established, well-accepted and effective system of reviewing clinical trial applications by ethics committees (ECs), which impair their independence. For the first time, the German federal legislator specified in detail the composition, functioning, tasks and responsibilities of ECs. ECs have to be registered with the federal drug authority BfArM and if an EC does not perform properly the registration can be withdrawn. In addition, the drug authorities may override the negative opinion expressed by an EC. The ECs will also lose their financial autonomy as the fees will be fixed by the federal government. The tasks and responsibilities of the ECs remain almost entirely unchanged, however. The ECs remain involved in the assessment of both parts of the application dossier. Part I is assessed together with the drug authorities, the drug authorities having the lead. The assessment of part II remains the sole responsibility of the EC. As the deadlines for the assessment became rather short, in particular for multinational trials, and the communication with the sponsor will be in writing only, the established procedures of ECs have to be modified. Up to now it was common to verbally discuss problematic issues with the sponsor. The CTR is focused on written communication with the sponsor via the EU portal. ECs, their office staff and chairpersons will need considerable professionalism and respective training. The future workflow requires substantial IT support. The ECs and the Association of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany will do their utmost to protect efficiently the research subjects and to promote Germany as a major destination for clinical research.

Towards a competency assessment tool for nurses in ethics meetings.

BACKGROUND: Nurses require specific knowledge, skills and attitudes to participate competently in various forms of ethics meetings. The literature does not state the contents of the knowledge, skills and attitudes nurses need for ethics meetings. Without such a competency profile, it cannot be assessed in how far nurses actually possess these qualities for ethics meetings. OBJECTIVE: Corroborating an existing profile of the requisite knowledge, skills and attitudes in the form of a questionnaire contributes to the development of a tool to determine the competence nurses need for ethics meetings. QUESTION: In how far can this profile be confirmed by a quantitative follow-up in a random sample? DESIGN: A questionnaire was developed to determine in how far nurses with prior involvement in ethics meetings recognise the earlier competency profile as important and comprehensive. PARTICIPANTS: It was made available to subscribers of the digital newsletter of three widely read nursing journals in the Netherlands. Data collection and analysis took place in the spring of 2013. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Care was taken to state explicitly in the questionnaire that participation in the survey was completely voluntary and anonymous. FINDINGS: To a high degree, nurses with involvement in ethics meetings recognise the knowledge, skills and attitudes from the earlier interviews when presented as a survey. DISCUSSION: Although the sample was small, the respondents and the results reflect known characteristics of nurses serving on ethics meeting. CONCLUSION: This may be helpful to recruit and prepare nurses for professional ethics in nursing care, and to develop a tool to assess to what extent nurses actually possess competence for ethics meetings.

Challenges in the Ethical Review of Peer Support Interventions.

PURPOSE: Ethical review processes have become increasingly complex. We have examined how 8 collaborating diabetes peer-support clinical trials were assessed by ethics committees. METHODS: The ethical reviews from the 8 peer-support studies were collated and subjected to a thematic analysis. We mapped the recommendations of local Institutional Review Boards and ethics committees onto the "4+1 ethical framework" (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, along with concern for their scope of application). RESULTS: Ethics committees did not consistently focus on tasks within the 4+1 framework: many conducted reviews of scientific, organizational, and administrative activities. Of the 20 themes identified across the ethical reviews, only 4 fell within the scope of the 4+1 framework. Variation in processes and requirements for ethics committees were particularly evident between study countries. Some of the consent processes mandated by ethical review boards were disproportionate for peer support, increased participant burden, and reduced the practicality of testing an ethical intervention. Across the 8 studies, ethics committees' reviews included the required elements to ensure participant safety; however, they created a range of hurdles that in some cases delayed the research and required consent processes that could hinder the spontaneity and/or empathy of peer support. CONCLUSION: Ethics committees should avoid repeating the work of other trusted agencies and consider the ethical validity of "light touch" consent procedures for peer-support interventions. The investigators propose an ethical framework for research on peer support.

Time required to start multicentre clinical trials within the Italian Medicine Agency programme of support for independent research.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Time allowed for independent ethics committees (IECs) and administrative offices to assess and activate clinical trials is regulated by law. This study aims to describe time spent activating two multicentre non-profit trials supported by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Five non-AIFA supported (NAS) trials were used as a benchmark. METHODS: The two AIFA-supported trials were FATA-GIM3 (optimal adjuvant hormonal treatment for breast cancer) and TOSCA (duration of adjuvant FOLFOX in colorectal cancer). The five NAS trials focused on lung or ovarian cancer. The following were measured for all trials: date of submission of trial documentation to peripheral IEC, date of IEC opinion and date trial contracts were signed. Times are reported in months. RESULTS: 106 centres applied to participate in FATA-GIM3 and 137 in TOSCA. An IEC opinion was issued by 100/106 (1 negative opinion) and 137/137 (2 negative opinions) centres, with a median time from submission of 3.6 months (range 0.1-60.2). After a positive IEC opinion, the median time before signing the trial contract was 3.3 months (0.1-59.2). Contracts were signed with 93/99 and 135/135 centres, with a median time from submission of study documentation of 8.4 months (0.5-61.1). Times for NAS trials were not substantially different. CONCLUSIONS: FATA-GIM3 and TOSCA centres were opened after a median of 8 months, consisting of nearly 4 months each for IEC opinion and administrative signature, similar to the NAS trials. The process of trial activation in Italy remains inefficient and takes far longer than legally allowed.

Ethical challenges in nursing homes--staff's opinions and experiences with systematic ethics meetings with participation of residents' relatives.

BACKGROUND: Many ethical problems exist in nursing homes. These include, for example, decision-making in end-of-life care, use of restraints and a lack of resources. AIMS: The aim of the present study was to investigate nursing home staffs' opinions and experiences with ethical challenges and to find out which types of ethical challenges and dilemmas occur and are being discussed in nursing homes. METHODS: The study used a two-tiered approach, using a questionnaire on ethical challenges and systematic ethics work, given to all employees of a Norwegian nursing home including nonmedical personnel, and a registration of systematic ethics discussions from an Austrian model of good clinical practice. RESULTS: Ninety-one per cent of the nursing home staff described ethical problems as a burden. Ninety per cent experienced ethical problems in their daily work. The top three ethical challenges reported by the nursing home staff were as follows: lack of resources (79%), end-of-life issues (39%) and coercion (33%). To improve systematic ethics work, most employees suggested ethics education (86%) and time for ethics discussion (82%). Of 33 documented ethics meetings from Austria during a 1-year period, 29 were prospective resident ethics meetings where decisions for a resident had to be made. Agreement about a solution was reached in all 29 cases, and this consensus was put into practice in all cases. Residents did not participate in the meetings, while relatives participated in a majority of case discussions. In many cases, the main topic was end-of-life care and life-prolonging treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of resources, end-of-life issues and coercion were ethical challenges most often reported by nursing home staff. The staff would appreciate systematic ethics work to aid decision-making. Resident ethics meetings can help to reach consensus in decision-making for nursing home patients. In the future, residents' participation should be encouraged whenever possible.

Qualitative analysis of healthcare professionals' viewpoints on the role of ethics committees and hospitals in the resolution of clinical ethical dilemmas.

Ethics consultation is a commonly applied mechanism to address clinical ethical dilemmas. However, there is little information on the viewpoints of health care providers towards the relevance of ethics committees and appropriate application of ethics consultation in clinical practice. We sought to use qualitative methodology to evaluate free-text responses to a case-based survey to identify thematically the views of health care professionals towards the role of ethics committees in resolving clinical ethical dilemmas. Using an iterative and reflexive model we identified themes that health care providers support a role for ethics committees and hospitals in resolving clinical ethical dilemmas, that the role should be one of mediation, rather than prescription, but that ultimately legal exposure was dispositive compared to ethical theory. The identified theme of legal fears suggests that the mediation role of ethics committees is viewed by health care professionals primarily as a practical means to avoid more worrisome medico-legal conflict.

To evaluate the effectiveness of health care ethics consultation based on the goals of health care ethics consultation: a prospective cohort study with randomization.

BACKGROUND: The growing prevalence of health care ethics consultation (HCEC) services in the U.S. has been accompanied by an increase in calls for accountability and quality assurance, and for the debates surrounding why and how HCEC is evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of HCEC as indicated by several novel outcome measurements in East Asian medical encounters. METHODS: Patients with medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues, and requests made by the attending physicians or nurses for HCEC from December 1, 2009 to April 30, 2012 were randomly assigned to the usual care group (UC group) and the intervention group (HCEC group). The patients in the HCEC group received HCEC conducted by an individual ethics consultant. Data analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. Mann-Whitney test and Chi-squared test were used depending on the scale of measurement. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (53.23%) were randomly assigned to the HCEC group and 29 patients were randomly assigned to the UC group. Among the 33 patients in the HCEC group, two (6.06%) of them ultimately did not receive a HCEC service. Among the 29 patients in the UC group, four (13.79%) of them received a HCEC service. The survival rate at hospital discharge did not differ between the two groups. Patients in the HCEC group showed significant reductions in the entire ICU stay and entire hospital stay. HCEC significantly facilitated achieving the goal of medical care (p < .01). Furthermore, patients in the HCEC group had a shorter ICU stay and shorter hospital stay after the occurrence of medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues than those in the UC group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that HCEC were associated with reduced consumption of medical resources as indicated by shorter entire ICU stay, entire hospital stay, and shorter ICU and hospital stay after the occurrence of the medical uncertainty or conflict regarding value-laden issues. This study also showed that HCEC facilitated achieving a consensus regarding the goal of medical care, which conforms to the goal of HCEC.

Health care ethics consultation: an update on core competencies and emerging standards from the American Society For Bioethics and Humanities' core competencies update task force.

Ethics consultation has become an integral part of the fabric of U.S. health care delivery. This article summarizes the second edition of the Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation report of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. The core knowledge and skills competencies identified in the first edition of Core Competencies have been adopted by various ethics consultation services and education programs, providing evidence of their endorsement as health care ethics consultation (HCEC) standards. This revised report was prompted by thinking in the field that has evolved since the original report. Patients, family members, and health care providers who encounter ethical questions or concerns that ethics consultants could help address deserve access to efficient, effective, and accountable HCEC services. All individuals providing such services should be held to the standards of competence and quality described in the revised report.

Education and the improvement of clinical ethics services.

The proliferation of clinical ethics in health care institutions around the world has raised the question about the qualifications of those who serve on ethics committees and ethics consultation services. This paper discusses some of weaknesses associated with the most common educational responses to this concern and proposes a complementary approach. Since the majority of those involved in clinical ethics are practicing health professionals, the question of qualification is especially challenging as the role of ethics committees and, increasingly, ethics consultation services are becoming increasingly important to the functioning of health care institutions. Since the challenging nature of health care finances often leads institutions to rely on voluntary participation of committed health professional with only token administrative or clerical support to provide the needed ethics services, significant challenges are created for attaining competence and functional effectiveness. The article suggests that a complementary approach should be adopted for sustaining and building capacity in clinical ethics. Ethics committees and consultation services should systematically adopt quality improvement techniques to effect designed changes in clinical ethics performance and to build ethical capacity within targeted clinical units and services. Demonstrating improvements in functioning can go a long way to build confidence and capacity for clinical ethics and can help in justifying the need for support. To do so, however, requires that ethics committees and consultation services first shift attention to those areas that demonstrate weak or questionable ethical performance, including the established practices of the ethics committee and consultation service, and second seek collaboration with the involved health care providers to pursue demonstrable change. Such an approach has a much better chance of improving the capacity for clinical ethics in health care institutions than relying on educational approaches alone.

HCEC pearls and pitfalls: suggested do's and don't's for healthcare ethics consultants.

Members of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Standing Committee of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities present a collection of insights and recommendations developed from their collective experience, intended for those engaged in the work of healthcare ethics consultation.

Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

CONTEXT: Federal regulations mandate independent review and approval by an "institutional review board" (IRB) before studies that involve human research subjects may begin. Although many researchers strongly support the need for IRB review, they also contend that it is burdensome when it imposes costs that do not add to the protections afforded to research participants and that this burden threatens the viability of research. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently announced its intention to reform the regulations governing IRB review. METHODS: We used a search of the PubMed database, supplemented by a bibliographic review, to identify all existing primary data on the costs of IRB review. "Costs" were broadly defined to include both expenditures of time or money and constraints imposed on the scope of the research. Burdensome costs were limited to those that did not contribute to greater protections for the participants. FINDINGS: Evidence from a total of fifty-two studies shows that IRBs operate at different levels of efficiency; that waiting to obtain IRB approval has, in some instances, delayed project initiation; that IRBs presented with identical protocols sometimes asked for different and even competing revisions; and that some decisions made (and positions held) by IRBs are not in accord with federal policy guidance. CONCLUSIONS: While the evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is burden associated with IRB review, it is too limited to allow for valid estimates of its magnitude or to serve as the basis for formulating policies on IRB reform. The single exception is multicenter research, for which we found that review by several local IRBs is likely to be burdensome. No mechanism currently exists at the national level to gather systematic evidence on the intersection between research and IRB review. This gap is of concern in light of the changing nature of research and the increasingly important role that research is envisioned to play in improving the overall quality of health care.

Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications.

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.

Ethics Committee or Community? Examining the identity of Czech Ethics Committees in the period of transition.

Reflecting on a three year long exploratory research of ethics committees in the Czech Republic authors discuss the current role and identity of research ethics committees. The research of Czech ethics committees focused on both self-presentation and self-understanding of ECs members, and how other stakeholders (representatives of the pharmaceutical industry) view them. The exploratory research was based on formal and informal communication with the members of the ethics committees. Members of the research team took part at six regular voluntary meetings of the ethics committees' members, organised by the Forum of Czech Ethics Committees, and at three summer schools of medical ethics. There were realised twenty-five semi-structured interviews as well as six focus group sessions and a participant observation of several regular meetings of three ethics committees. On the grounds of experience from the interviews a simple questionnaire survey was realised among the members of the ethics committees. The ethics committees comprise a community of members working voluntarily, without claims to remuneration or prestige; the unifying goal is protection of subjects of research. The principal working methods are dialogue and agreement. The members of the ethics committees thus, among other things, create an informal community, which can be to a certain extent seen as a Kantian ethical community in a weak sense. The phenomenon of ethics committees can also be described by terms of an epistemic community and a community of practice. These concepts, which are borrowed from other authors and areas, are used as a way how to think of ECs role and identity a bit differently and are meant as a contribution to the current international debate on the topic.

Review of policies for injuries to research participants in India.

BACKGROUND: As there is little Indian data about severity, frequency and types of research related injuries, costs involved and policies regarding compensation, this study was conducted to review the present Indian scenario. METHODS: The study was carried out in three parts; a questionnaire-based survey, in-depth interviews, and a review of informed consent and insurance documents of projects submitted to three ethics committees. RESULTS: 47% of investigators were either unaware of, or had not understood, the legal requirements and depended on sponsors to manage these issues, whereas 74% of ethics committee members were aware of the requirements. Although 40% of investigators, 30% of ethics committee members and all sponsors had policies to manage compensation issues, these were mainly to provide immediate free medical care or reimbursement of expenses incurred for the acute management of an adverse event. Compensation for loss of time/wages, death, physical disability or long term incapacitation was not included. A review of informed consent and insurance documents showed that compensation issues were inadequately discussed, with only insurance certificates submitted to ethics committees. CONCLUSION: In India, there are no uniform policies and investigators are largely unaware of their responsibilities. Therefore, there is an urgent need to draft national guidelines regarding compensation for research injuries of research participants and highlight the responsibilities of each stakeholder. Potential research injuries should be categorised based on risk assessment, severity and seriousness of the injury. Further, it would be necessary to have arbitration committees to determine the extent of compensation. Training and awareness workshops for those involved in clinical research, including research participants, is also needed.