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.

Legal Liability of Clinical Ethics Services in Australia: "Should I Be More Worried Than I Am?"

A key function of clinical ethics services (CESs) is to provide decision-making support to health care providers in ethically challenging cases. Cases referred for ethics consultation are likely to involve diverging views or conflict, or to confront the boundaries of appropriate medical practice. Such cases might also attract legal action due to their contentious nature. As CESs become more prevalent in Australia, this article considers the potential legal liability of a CES and its members. With no reported litigation against a CES in Australia, we look to international experience and first principles. We consider the prospects of a claim in negligence, the most likely legal action against a CES, through application of legal principles to a hypothetical case scenario. We conclude that, although unlikely to be successful at this time, a CES could face answerable claims in negligence brought by patients (and families) who are the subject of ethics case consultation.

Factibilidad, eficacia y satisfacción lograda por la intervención transdisciplinaria de un comité de ética clínico-hospitalario. Un estudio cualicuantitativo / Feasibility, effectiveness, and satisfaction achieved by the transdisciplinary intervention of a clinical-hospital ethics committee. A qualitative and quantitative study

Introducción. Las funciones del Comité de Ética Clínica (CEC) son educativas, normativas, consultivas, mediadoras y reflexivas. Como cualquier servicio de salud, las consultas de casos a un CEC deben ser sujetas a revisión y mejora de la calidad. Los objetivos fueron evaluar la factibilidad, la efectividad y la satisfacción de las recomendaciones ético-asistenciales dadas por el CEC, y evaluar su impacto en el equipo tratante y en la familia. Población y métodos. Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, cualicuantitativo, de casos clínicos presentados en el Comité de Ética Clínica del hospital desde el 1 de enero de 2013 hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2017, según datos del libro de actas, historias clínicas, registros de la Oficina de Comunicación a Distancia y entrevistas semiestructuradas al equipo de salud. Resultados. Se analizaron 108 casos (106 pacientes), 73 casos con encuesta y registros, y 35 solamente con registros. Los motivos principales más frecuentes de consulta fueron los siguientes: adecuación del esfuerzo terapéutico (46/42,6 %), compromiso neurológico grave (15/13,9 %), calidad de vida del paciente (11/10,2 %), conflictos entre el paciente, la familia y el sistema de salud (7/6,5 %), y rechazo del tratamiento por la familia (6/5,6 %). Se hallaron niveles altos de satisfacción (> 95 %) y niveles moderados de factibilidad (> 74 %) y efectividad (> 85 %). Solo en 50/108 casos (46,3 %) quedó registro en la historia clínica de la consulta al CEC y el 44 % de los profesionales opinó que la consulta tuvo un impacto positivo en la familia y en el paciente. Conclusiones. Los resultados contribuyeron a descubrir oportunidades de mejora, especialmente en la documentación y en la comunicación en el proceso de consulta.

Introduction. A clinical ethics committee (CEC) has educational, regulatory, advisory, mediation, and reflexive functions. As any health care service, the consults with the CEC should be subjected to review and quality improvement. The study objectives were to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and satisfaction with the bioethical recommendations made by the CEC and assess their impact on the treating team and the patient's family. Population and methods. Descriptive, retrospective, qualitative, and quantitative study of clinical cases submitted to the hospital's CEC between January 1 st, 2013 and December 31, 2017 using data from the CEC minute book, medical records, registries from the Office for Remote Communication, and semi-structured interviews with health care team members. Results. A total of 108 cases (106 patients) were analyzed: 73 cases with survey and registries and 35 with registries only. The main most frequent reasons for consultation were adequacy of therapeutic effort (46/42.6%), severe neurological involvement (15/13.9%), patient's quality of life (11/10.2%), patient-family-health system conflict (7/6.5%), and family's refusal of treatment (6/5.6%). High levels of satisfaction (> 95%) and moderate levels of feasibility (> 74%) and effectiveness (> 85%) were observed. In only 50/108 cases (46.3%), the consultation with the CEC was registered in the medical record, 44% of health care providers stated that the consultation had a positive impact on the patient and their family. Conclusions. Results helped to establish improvement opportunities, especially in terms of documentation and communication in the consultation process.

Feasibility, effectiveness, and satisfaction achieved by the transdisciplinary intervention of a clinical-hospital ethics committee. A qualitative and quantitative study. / Factibilidad, eficacia y satisfacción lograda por la intervención transdisciplinaria de un comité de ética clínico-hospitalario. Un estudio cualicuantitativo.

INTRODUCTION: A clinical ethics committee (CEC) has educational, regulatory, advisory, mediation, and reflexive functions. As any health care service, the consults with the CEC should be subjected to review and quality improvement. The study objectives were to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and satisfaction with the bioethical recommendations made by the CEC and assess their impact on the treating team and the patient's family. POPULATION AND METHODS: Descriptive, retrospective, qualitative, and quantitative study of clinical cases submitted to the hospital's CEC between January 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2017 using data from the CEC minute book, medical records, registries from the Office for Remote Communication, and semi-structured interviews with health care team members. RESULTS: A total of 108 cases (106 patients) were analyzed: 73 cases with survey and registries and 35 with registries only. The main most frequent reasons for consultation were adequacy of therapeutic effort (46/42.6%), severe neurological involvement (15/13.9%), patient's quality of life (11/10.2%), patient-family-health system conflict (7/6.5%), and family's refusal of treatment (6/5.6%). High levels of satisfaction (> 95%) and moderate levels of feasibility (> 74%) and effectiveness (> 85%) were observed. In only 50/108 cases (46.3%), the consultation with the CEC was registered in the medical record, 44% of health care providers stated that the consultation had a positive impact on the patient and their family. CONCLUSIONS: Results helped to establish improvement opportunities, especially in terms of documentation and communication in the consultation process.

Introducción. Las funciones del Comité de Ética Clínica (CEC) son educativas, normativas, consultivas, mediadoras y reflexivas. Como cualquier servicio de salud, las consultas de casos a un CEC deben ser sujetas a revisión y mejora de la calidad. Los objetivos fueron evaluar la factibilidad, la efectividad y la satisfacción de las recomendaciones ético-asistenciales dadas por el CEC, y evaluar su impacto en el equipo tratante y en la familia. Población y métodos. Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, cualicuantitativo, de casos clínicos presentados en el Comité de Ética Clínica del hospital desde el 1 de enero de 2013 hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2017, según datos del libro de actas, historias clínicas, registros de la Oficina de Comunicación a Distancia y entrevistas semiestructuradas al equipo de salud. Resultados. Se analizaron 108 casos (106 pacientes), 73 casos con encuesta y registros, y 35 solamente con registros. Los motivos principales más frecuentes de consulta fueron los siguientes: adecuación del esfuerzo terapéutico (46/42,6 %), compromiso neurológico grave (15/13,9 %), calidad de vida del paciente (11/10,2 %), conflictos entre el paciente, la familia y el sistema de salud (7/6,5 %), y rechazo del tratamiento por la familia (6/5,6 %). Se hallaron niveles altos de satisfacción (> 95 %) y niveles moderados de factibilidad (> 74 %) y efectividad (> 85 %). Solo en 50/108 casos (46,3 %) quedó registro en la historia clínica de la consulta al CEC y el 44 % de los profesionales opinó que la consulta tuvo un impacto positivo en la familia y en el paciente. Conclusiones. Los resultados contribuyeron a descubrir oportunidades de mejora, especialmente en la documentación y en la comunicación en el proceso de consulta.

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.

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.

[The Tübingen Model "Ethics Consultants on the Ward": a pilot project to establish decentralized structures of clinical ethics consultation at a university hospital]. / Das Tübinger Modell der "Ethikbeauftragten der Station": Ein Pilotprojekt zum Aufbau dezentraler Strukturen der Ethikberatung an einem Universitätsklinikum.

DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM: Clinical ethics committees form an integral part of ethics management and organizational ethics in clinical healthcare facilities. However, working mostly reactive and not being anchored in the corresponding organizational levels, such instruments are limited in terms of effectiveness. ARGUMENTS: Based on these shortcomings of clinical ethics consultation the multiprofessional working group "Ethics" at the University Hospital Tübingen, Germany has endeavored to design and implement new structures for sustainable ethical decision-making processes on its hospital wards. The Tübingen Model "Ethics Consultants on the Ward" is a pilot project intended to appoint specifically trained nursing staff on all wards as contact partners for ethical issues. Thus, the Tübingen Model represents an extension to established structures of clinical ethics consultation and complements existing top-down strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the objectives of the Tübingen Model and describes initial experiences in its implementation. After explaining their role within the existing structures of ethics consultation at the hospital, the tasks of the ethics consultants within and across the hospital's wards are presented. Furthermore, the qualification program for ethics consultants (basic and advanced training) as well as a train-the-trainer concept are presented, which support an in-depth development of competencies in nursing as well as medical ethics and provide confidence in the reflection and decision-making processes on the ward.

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.

Clinical Ethics Committees in Africa: lost in the shadow of RECs/IRBs?

BACKGROUND: Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) are well established at healthcare institutions in resource-rich countries. However, there is limited information on established CECs in resource poor countries, especially in Africa. This study aimed to establish baseline data regarding existing formal CECs in Africa to raise awareness of and to encourage the establishment of CECs or Clinical Ethics Consultation Services (CESs) on the continent. METHODS: A descriptive study was undertaken using an online questionnaire via SunSurveys to survey healthcare professionals and bioethicists in Africa. Data were subjected to descriptive analysis and Fischer's exact test was applied to determine associations. Texts from the open-ended questions were thematically analysed. RESULTS: In total 109 participants from 37 African countries completed the survey in December 2019. A significant association was found between participants' bioethics qualification or training and involvement in clinical ethics (p = 0.005). All participants were familiar with Research Ethics Committees (RECs), and initially conflated RECs with CECs. When CECs were explained in detail, approximately 85.3% reported that they had no formal CECs in their institutions. The constraints to developing CECs included lack of training, limited resources, and lack of awareness of CECs. However, the majority of participants (81.7%) were interested in establishing CECs. Participants listed assistance required in establishing CECs including funding, resources, capacity building and collaboration with other known CECs. The results do not reflect CECs established since the onset of COVID-19 in Africa. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a first look into CECs in Africa and found very few formal CECs on the continent indicating an urgent need for the establishment of CECs or CESs in Africa. While the majority of healthcare professionals and bioethicists are aware of ethical dilemmas in healthcare, the concept of formal CECs is foreign. This study served to raise awareness of CECs. Research ethics and RECs overshadow CECs in Africa because international funders from the global north support capacity development in research ethics and establish RECs to approve the research they fund in Africa. Raising awareness via educational opportunities, research and conferences about CECs and their role in improving the quality of health care in Africa is sorely needed.

Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons. METHODS: Guided by Levac et al's (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings. RESULTS: Nine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified - the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations. CONCLUSION: This review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy. To advance a contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive, program specific assessment tool to assess CECons, clear structural and competency guidelines must be established in the curation of CECons programs, to evaluate their true efficacy and maintain clinical, legal and ethical standards.

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.

Can clinical ethics committees be legitimate actors in bedside rationing?

BACKGROUND: Rationing and allocation decisions at the clinical level - bedside rationing - entail complex dilemmas that clinicians and managers often find difficult to handle. There is a lack of mechanisms and aids for promoting fair decisions, especially in hard cases. Reports indicate that clinical ethics committees (CECs) sometimes handle cases that involve bedside rationing dilemmas. Can CECs have a legitimate role to play in bedside rationing? MAIN TEXT: Aided by two frameworks for legitimate priority setting, we discuss how CECs can contribute to enhanced epistemic, procedural and political legitimacy in bedside rationing decisions. Drawing on previous work we present brief case vignettes and outline several potential roles that CECs may play, and then discuss whether these might contribute to rationing decisions becoming legitimate. In the process, key prerequisites for such legitimacy are identified. Legitimacy places demands on aspects such as the CEC's deliberation process, the involvement of stakeholders, transparency of process, the opportunity to appeal decisions, and the competence of CEC members. On these conditions, CECs can help strengthen the legitimacy of some of the rationing decisions clinicians and managers have to make. CONCLUSIONS: On specified conditions, CECs can have a well-justified advisory role to play in order to enhance the legitimacy of bedside rationing decisions.

El horizonte de la atención médica en pediatría: ¿qué hacer en el caso de niños que se encuentran en situación de abandono, conflicto, daño o peligro, aunado a una enfermedad grave? / The horizon of medical attention in pediatrics: what to do in the case of children who are in abandonment, conflict, harm or danger situations in combination with a severe disease?

Resumen: Introducción: Las leyes refieren que los menores no tienen la capacidad para dar su consentimiento informado para su propia atención médica; sin embargo, hay condiciones especiales en las que se les permite determinar lo referente a su salud. Cuanto mayores sean las limitaciones de juicio y experiencia en los menores, menos peso se otorga a los valores y objetivos que expresan; cuanto más adversas sean las consecuencias, se deberá exigir un nivel más alto de autoridad para decidir en nombre del menor, dejando al Estado la capacidad de garantizar el bienestar del menor. Caso clínico: Niña de 12 años con diagnóstico de leucemia linfoblástica aguda LI, con antecedentes familiares y sociales precarios; evolución entorpecida por el desapego al tratamiento y sus condiciones insalubres y pobreza extrema. Ambos padres fallecieron al poco tiempo de iniciar su tratamiento, quedando ella al cuidado de su medio hermana mayor de edad. Se exponen la labor y el dilema ético del oncólogo tratante y del personal del Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez en la creación de redes de apoyo con el objetivo de priorizar el bienestar de la menor, sin dar lugar al quebrantamiento y la desintegración familiar, consiguiendo exitosamente su recuperación. Conclusiones: El caso fue sometido al Comité de Bioética Hospitalaria. Se formaron redes de apoyo interinstitucionales para intervenir en la dinámica familiar, resolviendo los requerimientos de la menor, y se consiguió con éxito superar la enfermedad.

Abstract: Background: Laws refer that minors do not have the capability to give informed consent for their own medical attention. However, there are special conditions in which they are allowed to decide about their health. The greater the judgement and experience limitations in minors, the less weight is given to the values and objectives they express. Also, the more adverse consequences might be, the higher the level of authority that is demanded to decide on behalf of the minor, thus granting the State the capability to guarantee the well-being of the minor. Case report: 12-year-old female patient with a diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with precarious social and family background; evolution of the disease obstructed by the disregard of the treatment due to her unsanitary and extreme poverty conditions. Both of her parents died soon after the start of the treatment and she was kept under the care of her half-sister of legal age. The work and the ethical dilemma of the pediatrician and the staff of Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez are exposed within the building of support networks with the objective of prioritizing the minor's well-being, without allowing family break-up or disintegration, thus succeeding in her recovery. Conclusions: The case was submitted to the Hospital Bioethics Committee. Inter-institutional support networks were built in order to improve dynamics of the family, thus solving the needs of the minor. Despite the misfortune of the situation, the disease was successfully overcome.

[The horizon of medical attention in pediatrics: what to do in the case of children who are in abandonment, conflict, harm or danger situations in combination with a severe disease?] / El horizonte de la atención médica en pediatría: ¿qué hacer en el caso de niños que se encuentran en situación de abandono, conflicto, daño o peligro, aunado a una enfermedad grave?

Background: Laws refer that minors do not have the capability to give informed consent for their own medical attention. However, there are special conditions in which they are allowed to decide about their health. The greater the judgement and experience limitations in minors, the less weight is given to the values and objectives they express. Also, the more adverse consequences might be, the higher the level of authority that is demanded to decide on behalf of the minor, thus granting the State the capability to guarantee the well-being of the minor. Case report: 12-year-old female patient with a diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with precarious social and family background; evolution of the disease obstructed by the disregard of the treatment due to her unsanitary and extreme poverty conditions. Both of her parents died soon after the start of the treatment and she was kept under the care of her half-sister of legal age. The work and the ethical dilemma of the pediatrician and the staff of Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez are exposed within the building of support -networks with the objective of prioritizing the minor's well-being, without allowing family break-up or disintegration, thus succeeding in her recovery. Conclusions: The case was submitted to the Hospital Bioethics Committee. Inter-institutional support networks were built in order to improve dynamics of the family, thus solving the needs of the minor. Despite the misfortune of the situation, the disease was successfully overcome.

Introducción: Las leyes refieren que los menores no tienen la capacidad para dar su consentimiento informado para su propia atención médica; sin embargo, hay condiciones especiales en las que se les permite determinar lo referente a su salud. Cuanto mayores sean las limitaciones de juicio y experiencia en los menores, menos peso se otorga a los valores y objetivos que expresan; cuanto más adversas sean las consecuencias, se deberá exigir un nivel más alto de autoridad para decidir en nombre del menor, dejando al Estado la capacidad de garantizar el bienestar del menor. Caso clínico: Niña de 12 años con diagnóstico de leucemia linfoblástica aguda LI, con antecedentes familiares y sociales precarios; evolución entorpecida por el desapego al tratamiento y sus condiciones insalubres y pobreza extrema. Ambos padres fallecieron al poco tiempo de iniciar su tratamiento, quedando ella al cuidado de su medio hermana mayor de edad. Se exponen la labor y el dilema ético del oncólogo tratante y del personal del Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez en la creación de redes de apoyo con el objetivo de priorizar el bienestar de la menor, sin dar lugar al quebrantamiento y la desintegración familiar, consiguiendo exitosamente su recuperación. Conclusiones: El caso fue sometido al Comité de Bioética Hospitalaria. Se formaron redes de apoyo interinstitucionales para intervenir en la dinámica familiar, resolviendo los requerimientos de la menor, y se consiguió con éxito superar la enfermedad.

The use of an online comment system in clinical ethics consultation.

BACKGROUND: Although a mechanism for resolving ethical issues in patient care is required for accreditation of American hospitals, there are no formal qualifications for providing clinical ethics consultation (CEC), and there remains great variability in the composition of ethics committees and consult services. Consequently, the quality of CEC also varies depending on the qualifications of those performing CEC services and the format of CEC utilized at an institution. Our institution implemented an online CEC comment system to build upon existing practices to promote consistency and broad consensus in CEC services and enable quality assurance. METHODS: This qualitative study explored the use of an online comment system in ethics consultation and its impact on consensus building and quality assurance. All adult ethics consultations recorded between January 2011 and May 2015 (n = 159) were analyzed for themes using both open and directed coding methods. RESULTS: We found that comments broadly reflected three categories: expressions of approval/agreement (87% of consults), comments about the case (89%), and comments about the written record (72%). More than one-third of consults included responses to other comments (37%). The most common types of "comments about the case" included requests for additional information (36%), recommendations for additional services (21%), and references to formal policies/standards (28%). Comments often spanned multiple categories and themes. Comments about the written record emphasized accessibility, clarity, and specificity in ethics consultation communication. CONCLUSIONS: We find the online system allows for broad committee participation in consultations and helps improve the quality of CEC provided by allowing for substantive discussion and consensus building. Further, we find the use of an online comment system and subsequent records can serve as an educational tool for students, trainees, and ethics committee members.

Hospital Ethics Committees in Poland.

According to UNESCO guidelines, one of the four forms of bioethics committees in medicine are the Hospital Ethics Committees (HECs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the above guidelines are implemented in real practice. There were 111 hospitals selected out of 176 Polish clinical hospitals and hospitals accredited by Center of Monitoring Quality in Health System. The study was conducted by the survey method. There were 56 (50%) hospitals that responded to the survey. The number of HECs members fluctuated between 3 and 16 members, where usually 5 (22% of HECs) members were part of the board committee. The composition of the HECs for professions other than physicians was diverse and non-standardized (nurses-in 86% of HECs, clergy-42%, lawyers-38%, psychologists-28%, hospital management-23%, rehab staff-7 %, patient representatives-3%, ethicists-2%). Only 55% of HECs had a professional set of standards. 98% of HECs had specific tasks. 62% of HECs were asked for their expertise, and 55% prepared <6.88% of the opinions were related to interpersonal relations between hospital personnel, patients and their families with emphasis on the interactions between superiors and their inferiors or hospital staff and patients and their families. Only 12% of the opinions were reported by the respondents as related to ethical dilemmas. In conclusion, few Polish hospitals have HECs, and the structure, services and workload are not always adequate. To ensure a reliable operation of HECs requires the development of relevant legislation, standard operating procedures and well trained members.

Inspection of ethical issues in multicenter clinical trails in China: A survey of current status / 第二军医大学学报

Objective: To investigate the inspection mode of ethical issues for multicenter clinical trails in China, and to make analysis and give suggestions while taking into consideration of the international conventions. Methods: Representatives from 21 general hospitals and specialized hospitals from Liaoning province, Jiangsu province, Sichuan province, Guangdong province and Shanghai participated in a training course on promotion of ethical review capability; they were surveyed by anonymous questionnaire. Another 20 clinical trial agencies and ethical committees were interviewed by telephone. The questionnaires were collected and valid questionnaires were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: We found that 65.1% of the interviewees never used a central institutional review board (IRB); the main reasons included that they could not assess the quality of central IRB, they wanted to protect the subjects, they had a poor communication with the IRB, and they could not obtain a satisfactorily-localized informed consent forms. There were 34.9% of the interviewees used a central IRB, because they wanted to shorten the inspection time, avoid influence to the research progress, and to have satisfactory quality of IRB. Conclusion: Central IRB is not widely accepted. The related system needs to be further completed so as to improve the outcome of the inspection. The communication and cooperation between the central and local IRBs should be strengthened.