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

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

[Experience and opportunities of a Clinical ethics committee: report of the first three years of activity.] / Esperienza e opportunità di un Comitato per l'etica nella clinica: report dei primi tre anni di attività.

A Clinical ethics committee (Cec) has been implemented in an Oncology Research Institute in Northern Italy with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in addressing ethical issues related to clinical practice. This article describes the development and the activities carried out in 3 years since Cec's implementation. Our experience may increase knowledge of the role and opportunities of Cecs in the Italian context, and provide information on useful strategies for their regulation.

Clinical ethics committees.

This review describes the clinical ethics committees in Denmark. The clinical ethics committee is an interdisciplinary committee at a hospital intended to analyse ethically challenging situations and burdensome choices in patient care. The work in Danish KEKs takes place without formal organisation, in contrast to several other countries, where clinical ethics is regulated by law as research ethics is in Denmark.

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.

Evaluating a clinical ethics committee (CEC) implementation process in an oncological research hospital: protocol for a process evaluation study using normalisation process theory (EvaCEC).

INTRODUCTION: A Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) is a multi-professional service whose aim is to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organisations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice.Although CEC are quite common worldwide, their successful implementation in a hospital setting presents many challenges.EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC) will evaluate the implementation of a CEC in a comprehensive cancer centre in Northern Italy 16 months after its establishment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EvaCEC is a mixed-method study with a retrospective quantitative analysis and a prospective qualitative evaluation by a range of data collection tools to enable the triangulation of data sources and analysis. Quantitative data related to the amount of CEC activities will be collected using the CEC's internal databases. Data on the level of knowledge, use and perception of the CEC will be collected through a survey with closed-ended questions disseminated among all the HPs employed at the healthcare centre. Data will be analysed with descriptive statistics.The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) will be used for the qualitative evaluation to determine whether and how the CEC can be successfully integrated into clinical practice. We will perform one-to-one semistructured interviews and a second online survey with different groups of stakeholders who had different roles in the implementation process of the CEC. Based on NPT concepts, the interviews and the survey will assess the acceptability of the CEC within the local context and needs and expectations to further develop the service. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the local ethics committee. The project is co-chaired by a PhD candidate and by a healthcare researcher with a doctorate in bioethics and expertise in research. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05466292.

Percepción de utilidad entre profesionales sanitarios de un servicio de consultoría ética clínica / Healthcare workers’ perception of the usefulness of a healthcare ethics consultation service

Antecedentes y objetivo Los servicios de consultoría en ética clínica (CEC) surgen de los comités de ética para la asistencia sanitaria (CEAS) para atender conflictos éticos en tiempo real. Nuestro objetivo es conocer la percepción de utilidad de la CEC entre los profesionales sanitarios tras un año de su creación, así como evaluar los cambios de tendencia en el uso de la CEC y de los CEAS entre 2015 y 2021. Material y método Estudio observacional transversal mediante una encuesta estandarizada a los profesionales sanitarios de un hospital terciario urbano. Se compararon estos resultados con los de una encuesta idéntica realizada sobre la misma población en 2015. Resultados Participaron 213 profesionales (edad media 44 ± 11 años, 69% mujeres). Los profesionales conocían más la existencia de los CEAS que la CEC (94 vs. 61%; p<0,001). Un total de 45 encuestados (21%) habían consultado a la CEC desde su puesta en marcha; el 95% de ellos reconocían la utilidad de la consulta. Los facultativos conocían y utilizaban más la CEC que otros grupos profesionales. El grado de conocimiento sobre los CEAS en 2021 aumentó significativamente respecto a 2015 (94 vs. 76%; p<0,001). Se identificaron como áreas de mejora la necesidad de una mayor difusión del servicio, garantizar recursos institucionales para su mantenimiento y fomentar mayor participación de distintos profesionales. Conclusiones En los últimos años ha aumentado el conocimiento de los CEAS y de la CEC entre los profesionales sanitarios quienes consideran a la CEC útil para la atención de problemas éticos cotidianos (AU)

Background and objective Clinical ethics consultation services (CEC) have arisen from healthcare ethics committees (HEC) to address ethical conflicts in real-time. Our aim was to determine the perception of usefulness of a CEC service among healthcare workers one year after its creation as well as to assess changes in trends in the use of the CEC and HEC between 2015 and 2021. Material and method This observational, cross-sectional study was based on a standardized survey of healthcare workers at an urban tertiary care hospital. The results were also compared to those from an identical survey conducted in the same population in 2015. Results A total of 213 professionals participated (mean age 44±11 years, 69% women). The professionals were more familiar with the HEC than the CEC service (94 vs. 61%; p<0.001). Forty-five individuals (21%) had consulted the CEC since its implementation; 95% of them found the consultation useful. Physicians knew about and used the CEC more than other groups of professionals. The degree of knowledge of the HEC increased significantly by 2021 compared to 2015 (94 vs. 76%; p<0.001). Some areas for improvement identified were the need for greater dissemination of the service, guaranteeing institutional resources to maintain the service, and encouraging greater participation from different professional groups. Conclusions Knowledge of the institutional HEC and CEC services has increased in recent years among healthcare workers, who considered the CEC service to be useful for addressing ethical conflicts in daily practice (AU)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Medical-ethical decision-making-contribution of the clinical ethics committee by ethics consultation and development of ethical guidelines]. / Medizinisch-ethische Entscheidungsfindung ­ Beitrag des Klinischen Ethik-Komitees durch Ethikberatung und Erstellung ethischer Leitlinien.

Medical-ethical decision-making ranges between the poles of the medical indication on the one hand and the will of the informed and advised patient on the other, which do not necessarily have to coincide. Even if the definitive choice of action is made by the attending physician/the treatment team, it is particularly helpful in problematic conflicting situations to set up the corresponding decision-making as broadly as possible, with the result that ultimately an appropriate, acceptable, and well-founded decision is made for all parties involved. The clinical ethics committee (CEC) can perform the task of providing the most comprehensive and structured support possible in decision-making and problem-solving in a medical-ethical context with all its instruments of ethics consultation as well as by the development of "ethical guidelines". The CEC is not a decision-making body that makes unilateral decisions on its own authority and relieves the directly treating persons of the decision-making responsibility, but an advisory and supporting authority. For recurring, similar ethically sensitive questions, ethical guidelines can be created by the CEC of an institution with the aim of facilitating decision-making in a corresponding ethical problem situation. An ethical guideline provides orientation that can increase the quality of decision-making and relieve decision-makers ethically and legally. In doing so, the ethical guideline grants the decision-maker a range of possibilities by specifying a meaningful corridor for action, from which, in justified cases, deviations can also be made after individual evaluation.

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

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

The Freelance Ethics Consultant: Practice Model and Opportunities.

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

Multidisciplinary support for ethics deliberations during the first COVID wave.

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

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.

Ethical advice in paediatric care.

The need for local ethics advice during the COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on clinical ethics committees (CECs) and services. In this review, we focus on paediatric CECs that raise both generic questions and specific issues. In doing this, we acknowledge the broader roles of education, research and staff support some bioethics teams have developed but focus on the main areas of clinical ethics support to clinical teams. We raise 12 questions about the role, remit and responsibilities of CECs, provide preliminary answers to these and set out the next steps for the development of ethics support both in paediatric practice and more generally.