Search

In this paper, I leverage the pragmatist tradition in philosophy, the collective wisdom of scholarship in clinical ethics consultation, and earlier attempts to apply pragmatism in clinical ethics to develop a new vision of clinical ethics practice called New Clinical Pragmatism. It argues that clinical ethics methodology, from the New Clinical Pragmatist's perspective, amounts to the recommendation that consultants should customize a methodological approach, drawing on the various available methods, depending on the demands of the specific case, and should avoid attempts to identify a 'true' methodology but to the incoherence and inevitable failure of those attempts. I argue that pragmatism's emphasis on practical wisdom and experimentation allow the New Clinical Pragmatist to do this while avoiding irrationality in choosing methods. I discuss how the New Clinical Pragmatist gives a unique, constructive perspective on key aspects of clinical ethics consultation such as the choice of common morality vs. internal morality of medicine approaches, process standards, bioethics mediation, and narrative ethics, and suggest how New Clinical Pragmatism's relaxed approach to choice of methodology encourages consultants to balance attention to the particulars of the case with knowledge of what the many insightful scholars of clinical ethics methodology have found useful in the past. I also argue that New Clinical Pragmatism is consistent with efforts to professionalize clinical ethics consultation., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

The Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Healthcare Ethics Consultants instructs clinical ethics consultants to preserve their professional integrity by "not engaging in activities that involve giving an ethical justification or stamp of approval to practices they believe are inconsistent with agreed-upon standards" (ASBH, 2014, p. 2). This instruction reflects a larger model of how to address value uncertainty and moral conflict in healthcare, and it brings up some intriguing and as yet unanswered questions-ones that the drafters of the Code, and the profession more broadly, should seek to address in upcoming revisions. The objective of this article is to raise these questions as a way of urging greater clarification of the Code's overall approach to professional integrity, its meaning, and implications., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Introduction: Globally, healthcare providers (HCPs), hospital administrators, patients and their caretakers are increasingly confronted with complex moral, social, cultural, ethical, and legal dilemmas during clinical care. In high-income countries (HICs), formal and informal clinical ethics support services (CESSs) have been used to resolve bioethical conflicts among HCPs, patients, and their families. There is limited evidence about mechanisms used to resolve these issues as well as experiences and perspectives of the stakeholders that utilize them in most African countries including Uganda., Methods: This phenomenological qualitative study utilized in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect data from Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) staff, patients, and caretakers who were purposively selected. Data was analyzed deductively and inductively yielding themes and sub-themes that were used to develop a codebook., Results: The study revealed there was no formal committee or mechanism dedicated to resolving ethical dilemmas at the UCI. Instead, ethical dilemmas were addressed in six forums: individual consultations, tumor board meetings, morbidity and mortality meetings (MMMs), core management meetings, rewards and sanctions committee meetings, and clinical departmental meetings. Participants expressed apprehension regarding the efficacy of these fora due to their non-ethics related agendas as well as members lacking training in medical ethics and the necessary experience to effectively resolve ethical dilemmas., Conclusion: The fora employed at the UCI to address ethical dilemmas were implicit, involving decisions made through various structures without the guidance of personnel well-versed in medical or clinical ethics. There was a strong recommendation from participants to establish a multidisciplinary clinical ethics committee comprising members who are trained, skilled, and experienced in medical and clinical ethics., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Healthcare practitioners have access to a range of ethical guidance. However, the normative role of this guidance in ethical decision-making is underexplored. This paper considers two ways that healthcare practitioners could approach ethics guidance. We first outline the idea of deference to ethics guidance, showing how an attitude of deference raises three key problems: moral value; moral understanding; and moral error. Drawing on philosophical literature, we then advocate an alternative framing of ethics guidance as a form of moral testimony by colleagues and suggest that a more promising attitude to ethics guidance is to approach it in the spirit of 'critical engagement' rather than deference., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: At the beginning of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, many non-Covid healthcare services were suspended. In April 2020, the Department of Health in England mandated that non-Covid services should resume, alongside the continuing pandemic response. This 'resetting' of healthcare services created a unique context in which it became critical to consider how ethical considerations did (and should) underpin decisions about integrating infection control measures into routine healthcare practices. We draw on data collected as part of the 'NHS Reset Ethics' project, which explored the everyday ethical challenges of resetting England's NHS maternity and paediatrics services during the pandemic., Methods: Healthcare professionals and members of the public participated in interviews and focus group discussions. The qualitative methods are reported in detail elsewhere. The focus of this article is our use of Frith's symbiotic empirical ethics methodology to work from our empirical findings towards the normative suggestion that clinical ethics should explicitly attend to the importance of relationships in clinical practice. This methodology uses a five-step approach to refine and develop ethical theory based on a naturalist account of ethics that sees practice and theory as symbiotically related., Results: The Reset project data showed that changed working practices caused ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, and that infection prevention and control measures represented harmful barriers to the experience of receiving and offering care. For healthcare professionals, offering care as part of a relational interaction was an ethically important dimension of healthcare delivery., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that foregrounding the importance of relationships across a hospital community will better promote the ethically important multi-directional expression of caring between healthcare professionals, patients, and their families. We offer two suggestions for making progress towards such a relational approach. First, that there is a change of emphasis in clinical ethics practice to explicitly acknowledge the importance of the relationships (including with their healthcare team) within which the patient is held. Second, that organisational decision-making should take into account the moral significance afforded to caring relationships by healthcare professionals, and the role such relationships can play in the negotiation of ethical challenges., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Healthcare organizations aim to provide excellent, patient-centred care. Many departments within a hospital excel in achieving this goal, but clinical ethics service providers would benefit from becoming more patient-centred. This article considers how ethics services can add a patient-facing component to their strategic direction and work portfolio. Through a case example, suggestions to guide ethics service providers in expanding their duties and responsibilities are provided, including consultation with families and education sessions. This reframing would include clarifying the role of ethics within a healthcare organization, making services more accessible to patients, families and the community, as well as engaging with other disciplines to provide well-rounded patient care. While the work currently being done by clinical ethics services is important and ought to be continued, ethics service providers should strive to achieve the goal of improving patient experiences and directly contribute to the excellent care being provided., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

This paper is a clinical ethics case study which sheds light on several important dilemmas which arise in providing care to patients from cultures with non-individualistic conceptions of autonomy. Medical professionals face a difficult challenge in determining how to respond when families of patients ask that patients not be informed of bad medical news. These requests are often made for cultural reasons, by families seeking to protect patients. In these cases, the right that patients have to their own medical information in order to make autonomous decisions is in tension with the possibility that patients could hold values that require limiting their autonomy with regard to medical information disclosure, often based on the idea that family should take on difficult decision-making as an act of care. We describe one such case, of an 83-year old Russian woman whose husband requested she not be informed of a new cancer diagnosis. The appropriate response to this request was to ask the patient about her values separately, without disclosing any medical information until her values were clear. This patient indicated she wanted the care team to uphold her husband's request. This response makes the importance of determining a patient's values before moving forward with disclosure clear: she would not have wanted to be informed of her cancer. We describe our conversation strategy, which allowed value exploration without disclosure and highlighted that the obligation to respect a patient's autonomy sometimes includes an obligation to allow a patient to choose to limit their own autonomy. This case also highlights that this kind of conversation prioritizes the patient's values rather than the family's or care team's, centering patients in the way that is ethically appropriate., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

This article discusses an approach to translational bioethics (TB) that is concerned with the adaptation-or 'translation'-of concepts, theories and methods from bioethics to practical contexts, in order to support 'non-bioethicists', such as researchers and healthcare practitioners, in dealing with their ethical issues themselves. Specifically, it goes into the participatory development of clinical ethics support (CES) instruments that respond to the needs and wishes of healthcare practitioners and that are tailored to the specific care contexts in which they are to be used. The theoretical underpinnings of this participatory approach to TB are found in hermeneutic ethics and pragmatism. As an example, the development of CURA, a low-threshold CES instrument for healthcare professionals in palliative care, is discussed. From this example, it becomes clear that TB is a two-way street. Practice may be improved by means of CES that is effectively tailored to specific end users and care contexts. The other way around, ethical theory may be enriched by means of the insights gained from engaging with practice in developing CES in a process of co-creation. TB is also a two-way street in the sense that it requires collaboration and commitment of both bioethicists and practitioners, who engage in a process of mutual learning. However, substantial challenges remain. For instance, is there a limit to the extent to which a method of moral reasoning can be adapted in order to meet the constraints of a given healthcare setting? Who is to decide, the bioethicist or the practitioners?, (© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Increasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice., Methods: We used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation., Results: The Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur., Conclusions: The Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from those who have received clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services as a healthcare provider, patient, family member, or patient advocate. Three commentaries on these narratives are also included, authored by experts and scholars in bioethics, healthcare ethics consultation and certification, narrative medicine, and policy. The goal of this symposium is to call attention to the experiences of people who have received clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services as a healthcare provider, patient, family member, or patient advocate.

This symposium collection of twelve narratives from individuals who experienced clinical ethics consultations provides perspectives from a group that has not been adequately explored in the bioethics literature. The authors represent a variety of stakeholders who received ethics consultations: healthcare providers and family members. This commentary will focus on three themes addressed in the different narrative accounts: the reasons for requesting an ethics consultation; the expectations of the narrators from the consultation; and the conclusions the authors drew from their experience of the ethics consultation.

This commentary reflects on twelve stories of participants in clinical ethics consultations from the perspective of family members, some of whom are ethics consultants, and healthcare professionals. Together they reveal expectations of ethics consultations and suggest descriptions of the service. Some common themes emerge, including the role of the clinical ethics consultant in navigating complex situations, assuring all stake-holder voices are heard, attending to moral distress, addressing issues that seem beyond medical practice, and being accessible. They are almost uniformly positive about the experience, with criticism primarily about lack of access to the service.

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

In pluralist societies, stakeholders in healthcare may have different experiences of and moral perspectives on health, well-being, and good care. Increasing cultural, religious, sexual, and gender diversity among both patients and healthcare professionals requires healthcare organizations to address these differences. Addressing diversity, however, comes with inherent moral challenges; for example, regarding how to deal with healthcare disparities between minoritized and majoritized patients or how to accommodate different healthcare needs and values. Diversity statements are an important strategy for healthcare organizations to define their normative ideas with respect to diversity and to establish a point of departure for concrete diversity approaches. We argue that healthcare organizations ought to develop diversity statements in a participatory and inclusive way in order to promote social justice. Furthermore, we maintain that clinical ethicists can support healthcare organizations in developing diversity statements in a more participatory way by fostering reflective dialogues through clinical ethics support. We will use a case example from our own practice to explore what such a developmental process may look like. We will critically reflect on the procedural strengths and challenges as well as on the role of the clinical ethicist in this example., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The role of religion in clinical ethics consultations is contested. The religion of the ethics consultant can be an important part of the consultation process and improve the quality of a consultation. Practicing neighbor love leads to empathy, which not only can improve the quality of ethics consultations but also creates a space for religion to be part of, but not imposed on, the consultation. The practice of empathy will build trust, rapport, and an intersubjective connection that improves the quality of the consultation. (The views expressed are the author's and not representative of any institution or employer)., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

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

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., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Moral distress forms a major threat to the well-being of healthcare professionals, and is argued to negatively impact patient care. It is associated with emotions such as anger, frustration, guilt, and anxiety. In order to effectively deal with moral distress, the concept of moral resilience is introduced as the positive capacity of an individual to sustain or restore their integrity in response to moral adversity. Interventions are needed that foster moral resilience among healthcare professionals. Ethics consultation has been proposed as such an intervention. In this paper, we add to this proposition by discussing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) as a specific form of clinical ethics support that promotes moral resilience. We argue that MCD in general may contribute to the moral resilience of healthcare professionals as it promotes moral agency. In addition, we focus on three specific MCD reflection methods: the Dilemma Method, the Aristotelian moral inquiry into emotions, and CURA, a method consisting of four main steps: Concentrate, Unrush, Reflect, and Act. In practice, all three methods are used by nurse ethicists or by nurses who received training to facilitate reflection sessions with these methods. We maintain that these methods also have specific elements that promote moral resilience. However, the Dilemma Method fosters dealing well with tragedy, the latter two promote moral resilience by including attention to emotions as part of the reflection process. We will end with discussing the importance of future empirical research on the impact of MCD on moral resilience, and of comparing MCD with other interventions that seek to mitigate moral distress and promote moral resilience., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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., Competing Interests: None.

Background: Clinical ethics support is a form of preventive ethics aimed at mediating ethics-related conflicts and managing ethical issues arising in the healthcare setting. However, limited evidence exists regarding the specific ethical issues in clinical practice. This study aimed to explore the diverse ethical issues of cases referred to clinical ethics support after the new legislation on hospice palliative care and end-of-life decision-making was implemented in Korea in 2018., Methods: A retrospective study of cases referred to clinical ethics support at a university hospital in Korea from February 2018 to February 2021 was conducted. The ethical issues at the time of referral were analyzed via qualitative content analysis of the ethics consultation-related documents., Results: A total of 60 cases of 57 patients were included in the study, of whom 52.6% were men and 56.1% were older than 60 years of age. The majority of cases (80%) comprised patients from the intensive care unit. One-third of the patients were judged as being at the end-of-life stage. The most frequent ethical categories were identified as goals of care/treatment (78.3%), decision-making (75%), relationship (41.7%), and end-of-life issues (31.7%). More specifically, best interests (71.7%), benefits and burdens/harms (61.7%), refusal (53.3%), and surrogate decision-making (33.3%), followed by withholding or withdrawal (28.3%) were the most frequent ethical issues reported, which became diversified by year. In addition, the ethical issues appeared to differ by age group and judgment of the end-of-life stage., Conclusion: The findings of this study expand the current understanding of the diverse ethical issues including decision-making and goals of care/treatment that have been referred to clinical ethics support since the enforcement of the new legislation in Korea. This study suggests a need for further research on the longitudinal exploration of ethical issues and implementation of clinical ethics support in multiple healthcare centers., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2023 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

Background: On a daily basis, healthcare professionals deal with various ethical issues and it can be difficult to determine how to act best. Clinical ethics support (CES) has been developed to provide support for healthcare professionals dealing with complex ethical issues. A long-term perspective of participating in inter-professional dialogue and reflective-based CES sessions is seemingly sparse in the literature., Research Aim: The aim was to describe experiences of impact of Inter-professional Ethics Communication in groups (IEC) based on Habermas' theory of communicative actions, after 6 months from the perspective of an inter-professional team., Research Design: A qualitative inductive approach was chosen, and individual interviews ( n = 13) were conducted. Interview data were analysed using qualitative content analysis., Participants: The participants, 10 females and two males, represented assistant nurses, registered nurses, physicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, welfare officers and psychologists. Each had attended at least four IEC sessions., Ethical Considerations: The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå, Sweden, and it has been undertaken in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration., Findings: Overall, the descriptions expressed a perceived achievement of a deepened and integrated ethical awareness that increased the participants' awareness of ethically difficult situations as well as their own ethical thinking, actions and approaches in daily work. Perspectives were shared and the team become more welded. They carried the memories of the reflections within them, which was perceived as supportive when encountered new ethically situations., Discussion: Putting words to unarticulated thoughts may stimulate repeated reflections, leading to new insights and alternative thoughts., Conclusion: The outcome of IEC sessions 6 months following the last session can be described as an incorporated knowledge that enables actions in ethically difficult situations based on an ethical awareness both at a 'We-level' and an 'I-level'., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declare that this manuscript content has no conflict of interest.

AbstractThis article presents a model for doing clinical ethics consultations. It describes four phases of a consultation: investigation, assessment, action, and review. The consultant must identify the problem and determine whether it is a nonmoral problem (e.g., lack of information) or a moral problem involving uncertainty or conflict. The consultant must be able to identify the types of moral arguments that are used by participants to the situation. A simplified taxonomy of moral arguments is presented. The consultant must then assess the arguments for their cogency and identify where they align and where they conflict. The action phase of the consultation involves finding ways for the arguments to be presented and hopefully reconciled. The normative limitations to the role of the consultant are described.

AbstractDifferent methods are available in clinical ethics consultation. In our experience as ethics consultants, certain individual methods have proven insufficient, and so we use a combination of methods. Based on these considerations, we first critically analyze the pros and cons of two well-known methods in the working field of clinical ethics, namely Beauchamp and Childress's four-principle approach and Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade's four-box method. We then present the circle method, which we have used and refined during several clinical ethics consultations in the hospital setting.

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has inspired numerous opportunities for telehealth implementation to meet diverse healthcare needs, including the use of virtual communication platforms to facilitate the growth of and access to clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services across the globe. Here we discuss the conceptualization and implementation of two different virtual CEC services that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Clinical Ethics Malaysia COVID-19 Consultation Service and the Johns Hopkins Hospital Ethics Committee and Consultation Service. A common strength experienced by both platforms during virtual delivery included improved ability for local practitioners to address consultation needs for patient populations otherwise unable to access CEC services in their respective locations. Additionally, virtual platforms allowed for enhanced collaboration and sharing of expertise among ethics consultants. Both contexts encountered numerous challenges related to patient care delivery during the pandemic. The use of virtual technologies resulted in decreased personalization of patient-provider communication. We discuss these challenges with respect to contextual differences specific to each service and setting, including differences in CEC needs, sociocultural norms, resource availability, populations served, consultation service visibility, healthcare infrastructure, and funding disparities. Through lessons learned from a health system in the United States and a national service in Malaysia, we provide key recommendations for health practitioners and clinical ethics consultants to leverage virtual communication platforms to mitigate existing inequities in patient care delivery and increase capacity for CEC globally.

Within this paper, we discuss Moral Distress Reflective Debriefs as a promising approach to address and mitigate moral distress experienced by healthcare professionals. We briefly review the empirical and theoretical literature on critical incident stress debriefing and psychological debriefing to highlight the potential benefits of this modality. We then describe the approach that we take to facilitating reflective group discussions in response to morally distressing patient cases ("Moral Distress Reflective Debriefs"). We discuss how the debriefing literature and other clinical ethics activities influenced the development of our approach. In particular, we focus on the role of the clinical ethicist as a facilitator with particular emphasis on encouraging perspective-taking and nurturing ethical attunement in a supportive manner. We suggest that this approach reduces the narrowing effects of frustration and anger that are often reported when individuals experience moral-constraint distress. Finally, we provide an example of Moral Distress Reflective Debriefs, elucidating how this supportive process complements ethics consultation and can mitigate the negative effects of moral distress., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature.)

At the 2022 Clinical Ethics Unconference, the authors perceived a significant lack of racial and ethnic diversity, which was consistent with their experiences in other clinical ethics settings. As a result, they convened a working group to address the pervasive lack of diversity present in the field of clinical ethics and to propose strategies to increase the representation of people from racial and ethnic minority populations. This article identifies the harms associated with the lack of diversity in the healthcare setting and translates these to the field of clinical ethics. The article then proposes a framework that may be used to help diversify the field of clinical ethics. Specifically, the authors identify existing barriers to appropriate diversity, actionable steps to increase diversity, and tools the field can utilize to systematically assess its progress with respect to achieving diversity., (Copyright 2022 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

The OpenNotes (ON) mandate in the 21st Century Cures Act requires that patients or their legally authorized representatives be able to access their medical information in their electronic medical record (EMR) in real time. Ethics notes fall under the domain of this policy. We argue that ethics notes are unique from other clinical documentation in a number of ways: they lack best-practice guidelines, are written in the context of common misconceptions surrounding the purpose of ethics consultation, and often answer questions of a different nature than other documentation. Thus, we believe the clinical ethics community would benefit from clarification on when the withholding of ethics notes is justified. We provide recommendations for excluding information from ethics documentation based on the likelihood and magnitude of harm that may occur with particular disclosures and suggest approaches to decrease the potential harms that may occur. We define and explain six types of reasons to exclude information from ethics notes based on significant harms that are not addressed in the ON policy: (1) harmful revelations from a protected chart note; (2) negative emotional effects on patients or families; (3) the purpose of the consultation is undermined by harmful consequences; (4) avoidable negative impact on interpersonal dynamics; (5) inappropriate labeling or disclosure of medical, social, or financial information; and (6) inclusion of biasing or otherwise unfair information. We also suggest approaches to mitigate harm when excluding, including, reframing, or delaying release of information that is perceived to be relevant to an ethics case. Overall, we hope our analysis and recommendations will initiate a much-needed discussion about the impact of the ON mandate on clinical ethics documentation., (Copyright 2022 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Propelling Clinical Ethics Forward: A Working Unconference was held from 28-29 April 2022 in Atlanta, Georgia. The event, the third installment in an ongoing series of Clinical Ethics Unconferences, brought together 77 individuals from 40 institutions to exchange innovative practices and collaborate to address issues facing the field of clinical ethics. In this article the authors highlight the five major themes that emerged from the 2022 Unconference, including: (1) tackling new and old problems in clinical ethics practice; (2) evolving models of clinical ethics structure and delivery; (3) defining the scope of clinical ethics work; (4) addressing racism, ableism, and underrepresentation in clinical ethics work; and (5) collecting and utilizing data effectively. The authors also reflect on what was learned from the first three Unconferences and offer suggestions for future Unconferences., (Copyright 2022 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Clinical ethics consultations (CEC) can be complex interventions, involving multiple methods, stakeholders, and competing ethical values. Despite longstanding calls for rigorous evaluation in the field, progress has been limited. The Medical Research Council (MRC) proposed guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of complex interventions. The evaluation of CEC may benefit from application of the MRC framework to advance the transparency and methodological rigor of this field. A first step is to understand the outcomes measured in evaluations of CEC in healthcare settings., Objective: The primary objective of this review was to identify and map the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC. The secondary objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of CEC structures, processes, and roles to enhance understanding and to inform standardization., Methods: We searched electronic databases to identify primary studies of CEC involving patients, substitute decision-makers and/or family members, clinicians, healthcare staff and leaders. Outcomes were mapped across five conceptual domains as identified a priori based on our clinical ethics experience and preliminary literature searches and revised based on our emerging interpretation of the data. These domains included personal factors, process factors, clinical factors, quality, and resource factors., Results: Forty-eight studies were included in the review. Studies were highly heterogeneous and varied considerably regarding format and process of ethical intervention, credentials of interventionist, population of study, outcomes reported, and measures employed. In addition, few studies used validated measurement tools. The top three outcome domains that studies reported on were quality (n = 31), process factors (n = 23), and clinical factors (n = 19). The majority of studies examined multiple outcome domains. All five outcome domains were multidimensional and included a variety of subthemes., Conclusions: This scoping review represents the initial phase of mapping the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC and identifying gaps in the evidence. The confirmed lack of standardization represents a hindrance to the provision of high quality intervention and CEC scientific progress. Insights gained can inform the development of a core outcome set to standardize outcome measures in CEC evaluation research and enable scientifically rigorous efficacy trials of CEC., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Machine intelligence already helps medical staff with a number of tasks. Ethical decision-making, however, has not been handed over to computers. In this proof-of-concept study, we show how an algorithm based on Beauchamp and Childress' prima-facie principles could be employed to advise on a range of moral dilemma situations that occur in medical institutions. We explain why we chose fuzzy cognitive maps to set up the advisory system and how we utilized machine learning to train it. We report on the difficult task of operationalizing the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and patient autonomy, and describe how we selected suitable input parameters that we extracted from a training dataset of clinical cases. The first performance results are promising, but an algorithmic approach to ethics also comes with several weaknesses and limitations. Should one really entrust the sensitive domain of clinical ethics to machine intelligence?

Background: Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) have been established to support healthcare professionals in addressing ethically sensitive issues in clinical practice and, in many countries, they are under development. In the context of growing CESS, exploring how healthcare professionals experience and address clinical ethics issues in their daily practice represents a fundamental step to understand their potential needs. This is even more relevant in the context of extremely sensitive diseases, such as cancer. On this basis, we carried out a qualitative study conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of a major comprehensive cancer centre in Italy, with the twofold aim of investigating what ethical issues arise in the context of clinical oncology and how they are addressed, as well as stakeholders' expectations about a potential CESS to be implemented within the Institution., Methods: The study was conducted within the theoretical framework of Grounded Theory. Participants were healthcare professionals and other key stakeholders working within the cancer centre. The semi-structured interview aimed at exploring common ethical aspects of oncology, investigating stakeholders' professional experience in dealing with clinical ethics issues, their expectations and requests regarding ethics support services. Transcripts of the interviews were coded and analysed according to the principles of Grounded Theory., Results: Twenty-one stakeholders were interviewed. Our analysis showed a wide consensus on the identification of ethically relevant issues, above all those concerning communication, end-of-life, and resource allocation. The absence of institutional tools or strategies to address and manage ethical issues at the patient bedside emerged, and this is reflected in the widespread request for their development in the future. The ideal support service should be fast and flexible in order to adapt to different needs and clinical cases., Conclusions: The interviewees showed a limited degree of 'ethical awareness': despite having reported many issues in clinical practice, they could hardly identify and describe the ethical aspects, while  complaining about a lack of ethical resources in their management. To build a truly effective support service, it therefore seems appropriate to take such context into consideration and address the emerged needs. Ethical sensitivity seems to be key and it becomes even more relevant in critical clinical areas, such as the therapeutic pathways of terminally ill patients., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The prevalence of Clinical ethics support (CES) services is increasing. Yet, questions about what quality of CES entails and how to foster the quality of CES remain. This paper describes the development of a national network (NEON), which aimed to conceptualize and foster the quality of CES in the Netherlands simultaneously. Our methodology was inspired by a responsive evaluation approach which shares some of our key theoretical presuppositions of CES. A responsive evaluation methodology engages stakeholders in developing quality standards of a certain practice, instead of evaluating a practice by predefined standards. In this paper, we describe the relationship between our theoretical viewpoint on CES and a responsive evaluation methodology. Then we describe the development of the network (NEON) and focus on three activities that exemplify our approach. In the discussion, we reflect on the similarities and differences between our approach and other international initiatives focusing on the quality of CES., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use., Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research., Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance., Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans., Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Despite the unique nature of ethical issues in a longterm care setting, there is limited help in decision making for nursing home personnel. 2015 the Hospizverband of Upper Austria established a clinical ethic committee to help providing a good quality of decision making in nursing home. A consultation could be asked by the managing nurses of the longterm care institution, by the resident or by relatives of the nursing home residents. Since the start of the ethic committee 24 from 137 nursing homes in Upper Austria asked for a consultation. All consultations came from the personnel of the nursing homes. Beside the nursing team and 1-3 members of the ethic committee, in 75% of the consultations the physician was present. The most often discussed ethical issues were hospital admission (25%), conflicts with relatives of the residents, artificial nutrition (including PEG tube insertion and displacement) and use of restraints. The most underlying illness was dementia (50%). 20% of the residents were competent in their wishes, but none of the involved residents had a written precisely patient decree., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Clinical ethics support services (CESS) have been developing worldwide with growing interest in evaluating their quality. Paediatric-specific CESSs (p-CESS) have received little attention, and evidence from adult services might not be generalisable. Evidence on service models and practices is crucial to inform further research and debate on quality evaluation and minimum standards for p-CESSs. We aim to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise evidence for p-CESS structures, processes and outcomes., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a mixed-studies systematic review including peer-reviewed empirical studies published in English or Spanish language providing data on the evaluation and/or impact on any aspect of p-CESS. We will search seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, Web of Science and CINHAL, without filters applied. Search terms will be related to "clinical ethics support" AND "paediatrics" AND "structure/process/outcome". Reference and citation list of included studies will be handsearched. A 10% random sample of retrieved titles/abstracts and all full texts will be independently dual-screened. We will conduct narrative and thematic synthesis for quantitative and qualitative data, respectively, following sequential explanatory synthesis guided by Donabedian's framework of structure, process and outcomes. Quality will be assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). The review will be reported using the adapted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence template. Stakeholders will be involved twice in the review process; prior to data extraction and synthesis and after preliminary results., Ethics and Dissemination: As a systematic review of published data, no ethical approval is necessary. Results will be published in a relevant academic peer-reviewed journal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021280978., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Existing clinical ethics support (CES) instruments are considered useful. However, users report obstacles in using them in daily practice. Including end users and other stakeholders in developing CES instruments might help to overcome these limitations. This study describes the development process of a new ethics support instrument called CURA, a low-threshold four-step instrument focused on nurses and nurse assistants working in palliative care., Method: We used a participatory development design. We worked together with stakeholders in a Community of Practice throughout the study. Potential end users (nurses and nurse assistants in palliative care) used CURA in several pilots and provided us with feedback which we used to improve CURA., Results: We distinguished three phases in the development process. Phase one, Identifying Needs, focused on identifying stakeholder and end user needs and preferences, learning from existing CES instruments, their development and evaluation, and identify gaps. Phase two, Development, focused on designing, developing, refining and tailoring the instrument on the basis of iterative co-creation. Phase three, Dissemination, focused on implementation and dissemination. The instrument, CURA, is a four-step low-threshold instrument that fosters ethical reflection., Conclusions: Participatory development is a valuable approach for developing clinical ethics support instruments. Collaborating with end users and other stakeholders in our development study has helped to meet the needs and preferences of end users, to come up with strategies to refine the instrument in order to enhance its feasibility, and to overcome reported limitations of existing clinical ethics instruments., (© 2022. The Author(s).)