Search

Background: Coercion in mental healthcare has led to ethical debate on its nature and use. However, few studies have explicitly explored patients’ moral evaluations of coercion. Aim: The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of patients’ moral views and considerations regarding coercion. Research design: Semi-structured focus-group and individual interviews were conducted and data were analysed through a thematic content analysis. Participants and research context: A total of 24 adult participants with various mental health problems and experiences with coercion were interviewed in 2012–2013 in three regions of Norway. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval and permissions were obtained according to required procedures. Informed consent and confidentiality were also secured. Findings: Ethical considerations regarding coercion included seven main themes: the need for alternative perspectives and solutions, the existence of a danger or harm to oneself or others, the problem of paternalism, the problem of discrimination and stigma, the need for proportionality, the importance of the content and consequences of coercion and concerns about way that coercion is carried out in practice. Discussion: The participants’ views and considerations are in line with previous research and reflect the range of normative arguments commonly encountered in ethical and legal debates. The study accentuates the significance of institutional factors and alternative voluntary treatment opportunities, as well as the legal and ethical principles of proportionality and purposefulness, in moral evaluations of coercion. Conclusion: Broader perspectives on coercion are required to comprehend its ethical challenges and derive possible solutions to these from a patient perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Close to half of all deaths in Norway occur in nursing homes, which signals a need for good communication on end-of-life care. Advance care planning (ACP) is one means to that end, but in Norwegian nursing homes, ACP is not common. This paper describes the protocol of a project evaluating an ACP-intervention in Norwegian nursing homes. The aims of this research project were to promote the possibility for conversations about the end of life with patients and relatives; promote patient autonomy; create a better foundation for important decisions in the case of medical emergencies and at the end of life; and gain experiences in order to find out what characterizes good ACP and good implementation strategies.Methods/design: This study was a mixed method study including a cluster-randomized clinical trial. Eight nursing home wards or "clusters" were pair-matched, and one ward from each pair was randomly selected for a 12-month intervention. The intervention consisted of implementing an ACP-guideline. Implementation strategies were training and supervision of project teams and staff in using the guideline, written information to patients and next of kin, and information meetings with nursing home staff. The project was evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative data, and both outcome and process evaluation. Quantitative data included patient chart reviews of ACP, diagnoses, patient preferences for decision-making and treatment, values and wishes that are more general, documented life-prolonging treatment and hospitalizations, and concordance between patient wishes and treatment. The primary outcome was documented ACP. Qualitative data included observations of conversations, interviews with patients, next of kin and health care personnel, logs from project coordinators and conversations, and transcripts from meetings with project teams in the intervention group.Discussion: This project attempted to increase the quality and use of ACP in Norwegian nursing homes (NH). A mixed methods approach, inclusion of patients with dementia, attempts to involve, as many patients as possible, and a sustainable implementation plan adapted to real life in nursing homes were strengths of the project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Through the Norwegian ethics project, ethics activities have been implemented in the health and care sector in more than 200 municipalities. Objectives: To study outcomes of the ethics activities and examine which factors promote and inhibit significance and sustainability of the activities. Research design: Two online questionnaires about the municipal ethics activities. Participants and research context: A total of 137 municipal contact persons for the ethics project answered the first survey (55% response rate), whereas 217 ethics facilitators responded to the second survey (33% response rate). Ethical considerations: Based on informed consent, the study was approved by the Data Protection Official of the Norwegian Social Science Data Services. Findings: Around half of the respondents found the ethics project to have been highly significant for daily professional practice. Outcomes include better handling of ethical challenges, better employee cooperation, better service quality, and better relations to patients and next of kin. Factors associated with sustainability and/or significance of the activities were sufficient support from stakeholders, sufficient available time, and ethics facilitators having sufficient knowledge and skills in ethics and access to supervision. Discussion: This study shows that ethics initiatives can be both sustainable and significant for practice. There is a need to create regional or national structures for follow-up and develop more comprehensive ethics training for ethics facilitators. Conclusion: It is both possible and potentially important to implement clinical ethics support activities in community health and care services systematically on a large scale. Future ethics initiatives in the community sector should be designed in light of documented promoting and inhibiting factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ethics reflection groups (ERG) or moral case deliberations (MCD) are increasingly used in health care as a form of clinical ethics support (CES). ERGs are often evaluated with a focus on evaluating ERG itself yet not on the impact of or change due to ERGs. Within a larger study implementation and impact of ERG was studied with use of various qualitative and qualitative research methodologies. In this presentation we present findings of the quantitative research. Research question: Are there changes over time after two years of ERG regarding employees' normative attitudes with respect to the use of coercion, user involvement during the use of coercion, team cooperation and the handling of disagreement? Research methods: Repeated cross-sectional survey at seven wards within three different Norwegian mental health care institutions (T0-T1-T2). Results: In total, 817 surveys were included in the analyses. Of these, only 7.6 % (N= 62) have responded at all three points in time, while 76.8 % (N= 628) responded only once. Over time, adjusted for ward and profession, respondents agreed less that coercion is a form of care or security. Furthermore, respondents thought they involved patients and their family significantly more often in situations of coercion and they reported that the constructive of disagreement within the team significantly improved. More frequent ERG participation seemed associated with a more critical attitude towards the use of coercion and higher scores for user involvement, team cooperation and the constructive handling of disagreement, yet differences between ERG participation were generally small in absolute terms. Conclusion: Structural participation in ERG seems to contribute to changes in attitudes, user involvement and team cooperation. Studying changes over time and trying to find a relationship between CES interventions and outcome is difficult yet important and need to be further developed in future CES evaluation research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A central task for clinical ethics consultants and committees (CEC) is providing analysis of, and advice on, prospective or retrospective clinical cases. However, several kinds of biases may threaten the integrity, relevance or quality of the CEC's deliberation. Bias should be identified and, if possible, reduced or counteracted. This paper provides a systematic classification of kinds of bias that may be present in a CEC's case deliberation. Six kinds of bias are discussed, with examples, as to their significance and risk factors. Possible remedies are suggested. The potential for bias is greater when the case deliberation is performed by an individual ethics consultant than when an entire clinical ethics committee is involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empathy is generally regarded as important and positive. However, descriptions of empathy are often inadequate and deceptive. Furthermore, there is a widespread lack of critical attention to such deficiencies. This critical review of the medical discourse of empathy shows that tendencies to evade and misrepresent the understanding subject are common. The understanding subject's contributions to the empathic process are often neglected or described as something that can and should be avoided or controlled. Furthermore, the intrinsic and closely interwoven relationship between medical understanding and empathy is generally not explored. Instead of challenging objectivistic and instrumental ideals, the medical discourse of empathy tends to accommodate to inadequate ideals of objectivity and instrumentalism. Thus, important aspects of physician's rationality, understanding, and morality are neglected and important opportunities for reflection, dialogue, and critique are forfeited. Both the critical and constructive parts of this paper are heavily inspired by philosophical hermeneutic insights, e.g. that physician's empathy is always historically situated and part of a moral commitment. At the end of this paper, an alternative description of empathy - i.e. appropriate understanding of another human being - is outlined to facilitate the inclusion of hermeneutic insights and accentuate the inherent relationship between empathy and morality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical ethics committees have existed in Norway since 1996. By now all hospital trusts have one. An evaluation of these committees' work was started in 2004. This paper presents results from an interview study of eight clinicians who evaluated six committees' deliberations on 10 clinical cases. The study indicates that the clinicians found the clinical ethics consultations useful and worth while doing. However, a systematic approach to case consultations is vital. Procedures and mandate of the committees should be known to clinicians in advance to ensure that they know what to expect. Equally important is bringing all relevant facts, medical as well as psychosocial, into the discussion. A written report from the deliberation is also important for the committees to be taken seriously by the clinicians. This study indicates that the clinicians want to be included in the deliberation, and not only in the preparation or follow-up. Obstacles for referring a case to the committee are the medical culture's conflict aversion and its anxiety of being judged by outsiders. The committees were described as a court by some of the clinicians. This is a challenge for the committees in their attempt to balance support and critique in their consultation services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The uptake of family involvement in health care services for patients with psychotic disorders is poor, despite a clear evidence base, socio-economic and moral justifications, policy, and guideline recommendations. To respond to this knowledge-practice gap, we established the cluster randomised controlled trial: Implementation of guidelines on Family Involvement for persons with Psychotic disorders in community mental health centres (IFIP). Nested in the IFIP trial, this sub-study aims to explore what organisational and clinical barriers and facilitators local implementation teams and clinicians experience when implementing family involvement in mental health care for persons with psychotic disorders.Methods: We performed 21 semi-structured focus groups, including 75 participants in total. Implementation team members were interviewed at the initial and middle phases of the intervention period, while clinicians who were not in the implementation team were interviewed in the late phase. A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit participants with various engagement in the implementation process. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis.Results: Organisational barriers to involvement included: 1) Lack of shared knowledge, perceptions, and practice 2) Lack of routines 3) Lack of resources and logistics. Clinical barriers included: 4) Patient-related factors 5) Relative-related factors 6) Provider-related factors. Organisational facilitators for involvement included: 1) Whole-ward approach 2) Appointed and dedicated roles 3) Standardisation and routines. Clinical facilitators included: 4) External implementation support 5) Understanding, skills, and self-efficacy among mental health professionals 6) Awareness and attitudes among mental health professionals.Conclusions: Implementing family involvement in health care services for persons with psychotic disorders is possible through a whole-ward and multi-level approach, ensured by organisational- and leadership commitment. Providing training in family psychoeducation to all staff, establishing routines to offer a basic level of family involvement to all patients, and ensuring that clinicians get experience with family involvement, reduce or dissolve core barriers. Having access to external implementation support appears decisive to initiate, promote and evaluate implementation. Our findings also point to future policy, practice and implementation developments to offer adequate treatment and support to all patients with severe mental illness and their families.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03869177. Registered 11.03.19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: How should clinical ethics support services such as clinical ethics committees (CECs) be implemented and evaluated? We argue that both the CEC itself and the implementation of the CEC should be considered as 'complex interventions'.Main Text: We present a research project involving the implementation of CECs in community care in four Norwegian municipalities. We show that when both the CEC and its implementation are considered as complex interventions, important consequences follow - both for implementation and the study thereof. Emphasizing four such sets of consequences, we argue, first, that the complexity of the intervention necessitates small-scale testing before larger-scale implementation and testing is attempted; second, that it is necessary to theorize the intervention in sufficient depth; third, that the identification of casual connections charted in so-called logic models allows the identification of factors that are vital for the intervention to succeed and which must therefore be studied; fourth, that an important part of a feasibility study must be to identify and chart as many as possible of the causally important contextual factors.Conclusion: The conceptualization of the implementation of a CEC as a complex intervention shapes the intervention and the way evaluation research should be performed, in several significant ways. We recommend that researchers consider whether a complex intervention approach is called for when studying CESS implementation and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a range of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the implementation process of interdisciplinary ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ERG implementation to include both psychiatric and general hospital departments.Methods: The implementation and evaluation strategies are inspired by action research, using a qualitative approach and systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers.Results: The implementation process was influenced by both structural factors and factors related to clinicians having different values, interests and experiences. Structural barriers and promotors in the process to implement ERG included the following sub-categories: Organizational factors, recruitment and training of ethics facilitators, the deliberation model, planning and recruitment of participants to the ERGs, the support of the ward managers and the project group. Barriers and promotors found among clinicians included the following sub-categories: Expectations and pre-understandings of ERGs, understandings of a physician's job, challenges experienced by ethics facilitators. At the end of the study, when it was decided that the ERGs should be continued, the implementation strategies were remodeled by the participants to meet new challenges.Conclusion: The study of ERG implementation identified important structural and professional barriers and promotors that are likely to be relevant to anyone wanting to implement ethics support services across various types of healthcare services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Respect for patient autonomy and the requirement of informed consent is an essential basic patient right. It is constituted through international conventions and implemented in health law in Norway and most other countries. Healthcare without informed consent is only allowed under specific exceptions, which requires a record in the patient charts. In this study, we investigated how surgeons recorded decisions in situations where the elderly patient's ability to provide a valid informed consent was questionable or clearly missing. Method: We investigated all medical records of patients admitted to surgical departments in a Norwegian large academic emergency hospital over a period of 38 days (approximately 5000 patients). We selected records of patients above the age of 70 (570 patients) and searched through these 570 medical records for any noted clear indications of inability to consent such as "do not understand", "confused" etc. (102 patients). We read through all the medical records on these 102 patients noting any recordings on lack of informed consent, any recordings on reasoning and process hereto. We also took note whether there were clear indications on the use of coercion. Results: None of the 102 included patients´ charts contained legally valid recorded assessments (for example related to the patients´ competence to consent) when patients without the ability to consent were admitted and provided healthcare. Some charts contained records that the patient resisted treatment, thus indicating treatment with coercion. In these situations, we did not find any documentation related to legal requirements that regulate the use of coercion. Discussion and conclusion: We found a substantial lack of compliance with the legal requirements that apply when obtaining valid informed consent. There are many possible reasons for this: Lack of knowledge of the legal requirements, disagreement about the rules, or that it is simply not possible to comply with the extensive formal and material legal requirements in clinical practice. The results do not point out whether the appropriate measures are amending the law, educating and requiring more compliance from surgeons, or both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]