Search

Universities and other research institutions are increasingly providing additional training in research integrity to improve the quality and reliability of research. Various training courses have been developed, with diverse learning goals and content. Despite the importance of training that focuses on moral character and professional virtues, there remains a lack of training that adopts a virtue ethics approach. To address this, we, a European Commission-funded consortium, have designed a train-the-trainer programme for research integrity. The programme is based on (1) virtue ethics, (2) the ethos of science, (3) learning by doing and (4) learner-centred teaching. The blended learning programme combines e-learning modules with participatory group sessions. Trainers are taught how to guide researchers through a series of structured exercises for fostering reflection on scientific virtues, and how to promote understanding and application of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Trainers are provided with adaptable tools and resources that can be used and combined in different ways. The programme implementation began in Spring 2020 and 470 trainers have participated to date. When trainers were asked to grade – between 0 (very bad) and 10 (excellent) – the e-learning modules and the participatory exercises, 60% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 8, IQR = 2) for the e-learning modules, whereas 80% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 9, IQR = 1) for the participatory exercises. A majority felt that the training helped them as a trainer to learn about ways to organise and teach a research integrity course (82%) and would recommend the interactive exercises to others (92%). Trainers have educated over 3300 researchers in Europe using our virtue-based approach. The VIRT2UE train-the-trainer programme fosters research integrity by providing trainers with exercises and tools which enable them to stimulate the development of good researchers across Europe.

Universities and other research institutions are increasingly providing additional training in research integrity (RI) in an attempt to improve the quality and reliability of research. Various training courses have been developed, with diverse learning goals and content. Despite the importance of training that focuses on moral character and professional virtues, there remains a lack of training taking a virtue ethics approach to teaching research integrity. To address this, we, a European Commission funded consortium, have designed a train-the-trainer (TtT) programme for research integrity. The programme is guided by the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of 1) virtue ethics, 2) ethos of science, 3) learning by doing, and 4) learner-centred teaching. The programme follows a blended learning approach, combining online modules with group sessions using participatory exercises. Trainers are taught how to guide researchers through a series of structured exercises for fostering reflection on scientific virtues, and how to promote understanding of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and its application in practice. Trainers experience the programme as participants and learn how to deliver the content themselves. Trainers are provided with adaptable tools and resources that can be used and combined in different ways in their own teaching. The programme implementation began in Spring 2020 and 470 trainers have participated in the programme to date. When trainers who had participated in the programme were asked to grade – between 0 (very bad) and 10 (excellent) – the online modules and the participatory exercises, 60% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 8, IQR = 2) for the e-learning modules, whereas 80% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 9, IQR = 1) for the participatory exercises. A majority felt that the training helped them as a trainer to learn about ways to organize and teach a research integrity course (82%) and would recommend the interactive exercises to others (92%). At the moment, trainers have educated over 3300 researchers in Europe using core elements of our virtue-based approach. The VIRT2UE TtT programme fosters research integrity by providing trainers with exercises and tools which enable them to stimulate the development of good researchers across Europe.

Background: This article presents a set of quality characteristics of clinical ethics support (CES) in the Netherlands. Methods: The quality characteristics were developed with a large group of stakeholders working with CES, participating in the Dutch Network for Clinical Ethics Support (NEON). Results: The quality characteristics concern the following domains: (1) goals of CES, (2) methods of CES, (3) competences of CES practitioners, and (4) implementation of CES. Conclusions: We discuss suggestions for how to use the quality characteristics, discuss some aspects that stand out about these quality characteristics, and reflect on the method and the status of the quality characteristics. The quality characteristics are meant as a heuristic instrument, helping CES practitioners to explore and improve the quality of CES in a health care organization, but at the same time they can be improved based on experiences during their application to CES practices.

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.

Background: Moral case deliberation is a form of clinical ethics support to help healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. There is a lack of evidence about what outcomes healthcare professionals experience in daily practice after moral case deliberations. The Euro-MCD Instrument was developed to measure outcomes, based on the literature, a Delphi panel, and content validity testing. To examine relevance of items and adequateness of domains, a field study is needed. Aim: To describe experienced outcomes after participating in a series of moral case deliberations, both during sessions and in daily practice, and to explore correlations between items to further validate the Euro-MCD Instrument. Methods: In Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway, healthcare institutions that planned a series of moral case deliberations were invited. Closed responses were quantitatively analyzed. The factor structure of the instrument was tested using exploratory factor analyses. Ethical considerations: The study was approved in Sweden by a review board. In Norway and the Netherlands, data services and review boards were informed about the study. Results: The Euro-MCD Instrument was completed by 443 and 247 healthcare professionals after four and eight moral case deliberations, respectively. They experienced especially outcomes related to a better collaboration with co-workers and outcomes about individual moral reflexivity and attitude, both during sessions and in daily practice. Outcomes were experienced to a higher extent during sessions than in daily practice. The factor structure revealed four domains of outcomes, which did not confirm the six Euro-MCD domains. Conclusion: Field-testing the Euro-MCD Instrument showed the most frequently experienced outcomes and which outcomes correlated with each other. When revising the instrument, domains should be reconsidered, combined with theory about underlying concepts. In the future, a feasible and valid instrument will be presented to get insight into how moral case deliberation supports and improves healthcare.

BackgroundIn childhood cancer care, healthcare professionals must deal with several difficult moral situations in clinical practice. Previous studies show that morally difficult challenges are related to decisions on treatment limitations, infringing on the child's integrity and growing autonomy, and interprofessional conflicts. Research also shows that healthcare professionals have expressed a need for clinical ethics support to help them deal with morally difficult situations. Moral case deliberations (MCDs) are one example of ethics support. The aim of this study was to describe the MCD-related outcomes that healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care considered important, before MCDs were implemented, in order to facilitate the implementation of MCDs in childhood cancer care in Sweden.MethodsThis study is based on qualitative data. Healthcare professionals, mostly representing registered nurses, nursing assistants and physicians, working at childhood cancer care centres in Sweden, were invited to respond to the translated and content validated European MCD Outcomes Instrument, before participating in regular MCDs. Answers to the main open-ended question, included in the questionnaire, was analysed according to systematic text condensation.ResultsData was collected from 161 responses from the healthcare professionals. The responses included healthcare professionals’ perceptions of which MCD-related outcomes they found important for handling moral challenges. Three different themes of important outcomes from the analysis of the data are presented as follows:Interprofessional well-being in team interactionson a team level;Professional comfort when dealing with moral challengeson a personal level; andImproved quality of care for the child and the familyon a care level.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals in childhood cancer care considered it important that ethics support could enhance the well-being of interprofessional teams, support healthcare professionals on an individual level and improve quality of care. The results of this study can be used in current and future training for MCD-facilitators. When knowing the context specific important MCD-outcomes, the sessions could be adapted. Managers in childhood cancer care would benefit from knowing about the specific important outcomes for their target group because they could then create relevant working conditions for clinical ethics support.

Evaluating the feasibility and first perceived outcomes of a newly developed clinical ethics support instrument called CURA. This instrument is tailored to the needs of nurses that provide palliative care and is intended to foster both moral competences and moral resilience. This study is a descriptive cross-sectional evaluation study. Respondents consisted of nurses and nurse assistants (n = 97) following a continuing education program (course participants) and colleagues of these course participants (n = 124). Two questionnaires with five-point Likert scales were used. The feasibility questionnaire was given to all respondents, the perceived outcomes questionnaire only to the course participants. Data collection took place over a period of six months. Respondents were predominantly positive on most items of the feasibility questionnaire. The steps of CURA are clearly described (84% of course participants agreed or strongly agreed, 94% of colleagues) and easy to apply (78–87%). The perceived outcomes showed that CURA helped respondents to reflect on moral challenges (71% (strongly) agreed), in perspective taking (67%), with being aware of moral challenges (63%) and in dealing with moral distress (54%). Respondents did experience organizational barriers: only half of the respondents (strongly) agreed that they could easily find time for using CURA. CURA is a feasible instrument for nurses and nurse assistants providing palliative care. However, reported difficulties in organizing and making time for reflections with CURA indicate organizational preconditions ought to be met in order to implement CURA in daily practice. Furthermore, these results indicate that CURA helps to build moral competences and fosters moral resilience.

The article of Cho et al. (2020) addresses an understudied topic in bioethics, namely ethical issues experienced by patients and family members. What stands out from the results is that patients an...

Although moral case deliberation (MCD) is evaluated positively as a form of clinical ethics support (CES), it has limitations. To address these limitations our research objective was to develop a thematic CES tool. In order to assess the philosophical characteristics of a CES tool based on MCDs, we drew on hermeneutic ethics and pragmatism. We distinguished four core characteristics of a CES tool: (a) focusing on an actual situation that is experienced as morally challenging by the user; (b) stimulating moral inquiry into the moral concepts, questions and routines in the lived experience of the CES tool user; (c) stimulating moral learning by exploring other perspectives; and (d) incorporating contextual details. We provide an example of a CES tool developed for moral dilemmas over client autonomy. Our article ends with some reflections on the normativity of the CES tool, other application areas and the importance of evaluation studies of CES tools.

There is considerable support for the idea that an atmosphere of safety can foster learning in groups, especially during ethics training courses. However, the question how safety dynamics works during ethics courses is still understudied. This article aims to investigate safety dynamics by examining a critical incident during a military ethics train-the trainer course during which safety was threatened. We examine this incident by means of a four-factor analysis model from the field of Theme-Centered Interaction (TCI). We show that during ethics training courses a safety paradox can occur, involving a tension between honesty and openness to other perspectives and values. Finally, we discuss how trainers can foster safety during ethics training.

"Ethics support staff often help others to deal with moral challenges. However, they themselves can also experience moral challenges when practicing ethics support. Facilitators of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) sometimes for example experience ethical questions when it comes to (breaking) confidentiality. Facilitators might find themselves compelled to intervene or act upon things they hear or see whilst facilitating a MCD. For example, a MCD facilitator finds out that a participant does something illegal. Or, what to do if a MCD facilitator is asked to inform the Inspectorate about details of a MCD? When is a facilitator allowed or obligated to break confidentiality and share information with others? How to make such a decision? And, if allowed to break confidentiality, how to do this in a morally sound way? Currently there are no moral guidelines on how to act upon these questions. We conducted empirical research that explores moral challenges of MCD facilitators related to confidentiality and develops a moral compass which provides directions to approach these challenges. Data collection consists of three complementary methods: * analyses of 3 a 4 audiotaped and transcribed MCD sessions about how and when to break confidentiality; * in-depth interviews about the topic; * focus group to validate the findings and co-create a moral compass. In our presentation, we will reflect upon both the theoretical and normative considerations concerning confidentiality in ethics support and the empirical results of this study. Furthermore, we will present a preliminary version of a moral compass in order to strengthen the moral competency of MCD facilitators. "

"Background: Allocating admitted patients to their wards is increasingly put under pressure due to high bed occupancy rates. Consequently, allocation becomes morally challenging as it is confronted with potentially conflicting values like protecting teams’ workload, solidarity between wards and quality of care. Furthermore, there is a continuous uncertainty regarding expected intake, discharge, available beds and personnel. An integrative ethics support project was started to help to better deal with these challenges. After identifying core moral challenges, the aim of the current project was to co-create a map of values and norms for the daily allocation meetings. Methods: This qualitative study included observations of allocation meetings and 13 interviews. Subsequently, in five working group sessions a map of relevant values and norms was co-created with a selection of involved professionals. Results: Findings revealed moral challenges in three so-called ‘moral circles’: 1) one’s own team; 2) the hospital and 3) the hospital’s region. A map was developed including important and agreed upon values with 14 norms for the daily allocation meetings. Additionally, formal policies were updated and a conversation method was introduced to guide discussions when there are moral challenges. Conclusion: The joint development of the map led to a shared and practical product for both discussions and decisions regarding bed allocation. Its development already contributed to increased awareness of and openness about moral challenges. Using the map in daily allocation meetings may further stimulate moral reflection on these challenges to support these healthcare professionals in making well-considered and value-based decisions. "

"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. "

Background: Research on the impact of ethics reflection groups (ERG) or moral case deliberations (MCD) is complex and scarce. Within a larger study, ERG has been used as an intervention for stimulating critical ethical reflection and improved team cooperation while observing changes over time.Research question: Are there – during and after two years of ERGs - changes over time regarding employees’ normative attitudes regarding the use of coercion and how employees perceive user involvement, team cooperation and the handling of disagreement in teams?Methods: Repeated cross-sectional survey to multidisciplinary employees at seven wards within three Norwegian mental health care institutions (T0-T1-T2). Changes in normative attitudes over time were estimated using linear mixed models.Results: In total, 817 surveys (from employees that did and did not participate in ERG) were included in the analyses. Of these, 7.6 % (N=62) responded at all three points in time, 15.5% (N=127) at two points, and 76.8 % (N= 628) once. On average, over time, respondents who participated in ERG agreed less that coercion can be seen a form of care or security. ERG participants more often reported that they involved users and that they handled disagreement within the team constructively. Furthermore, more frequent ERG participation was associated with a more critical attitude towards coercion and higher scores for user involvement, the coercion competence of the team and the constructive handling of disagreement within their teams.Conclusions: Structural ERGs or MCDs seem to contribute to employees reporting a more critical attitude towards coercion, more user involvement around coercion and a more constructive handling of disagreement. Differences were generally small in absolute terms possibly due to the low amount of longitudinal data and the relative low frequency of ERG’s during the two years. Studying changes over time in clinical practice and trying to find a relationship between CES interventions and CES outcomes is difficult yet important and needs to be further developed in future CES evaluation studies. This explorative quantitative study may be a first step from qualitative evidence towards more robust quantitative evidence of the contribution of CES to clinical practice and quality of care.

Treatment teams providing affirmative medical transgender care to young people frequently face moral challenges arising from the care they provide. An adolescent’s capacity to consent, for example, could raise several issues and challenges. To deal with these challenges more effectively, several Dutch treatment teams started using a relatively well-established form of clinical ethics support (CES) called Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). MCD is a facilitator-led, collective moral inquiry based on a real case. This study’s purpose is to describe the teams’ perceived value and effectiveness of MCD. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation study using MCD session reports, individual interviews, focus groups, and MCD evaluation questionnaires. Our results show that Dutch transgender care providers rated MCD as highly valuable in situations where participants were confronted with moral challenges. The health care providers reported that MCD increased mutual understanding and open communication among team members and strengthened their ability to make decisions and take action when managing ethically difficult circumstances. However, the health care providers also expressed criticisms of MCD: some felt that the amount of time spent discussing individual cases was excessive, that MCD should lead to more practical and concrete results, and that MCD needed better integration and follow-up in the regular work process. We recommend future research on three matters: studying how MCD contributes to the quality of care, involvement of transgender people themselves in MCD, and integration of CES into daily work processes.

Background Clinical ethics support (CES) aims to support health care professionals in dealing with ethical issues in clinical practice. Although the prevalence of CES is increasing, it does meet challenges and pressing questions regarding implementation and organization. In this paper we present a specific way of organizing CES, which we have called integrative CES, and argue that this approach meets some of the challenges regarding implementation and organization. Methods This integrative approach was developed in an iterative process, combining actual experiences in a case study in which we offered CES to a team that provides transgender health care and reflecting on the theoretical underpinnings of our work stemming from pragmatism, hermeneutics and organizational and educational sciences. Results In this paper we describe five key characteristics of an integrative approach to CES; 1. Positioning CES more within care practices, 2. Involving new perspectives, 3. Creating co-ownership of CES, 4. Paying attention to follow up, and 5. Developing innovative CES activities through an emerging design. Conclusions In the discussion we compare this approach to the integrated approach to CES developed in the US and the hub and spokes strategy developed in Canada. Furthermore, we reflect on how an integrative approach to CES can help to handle some of the challenges of current CES.

Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes.Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance.Conclusions: The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.

BACKGROUND: In childhood cancer care, healthcare professionals mustdeal with several difficult moral situations in clinical practice. Previous studies show that morally difficult challenges are related to decisions on treatment limitations, infringing on the child's integrity and growing autonomy, and interprofessional conflicts. Research also shows that healthcare professionals want ethics support to help them deal with morally difficult situations.Ethics case reflection (ECR)roundsare one example of ethics support. However, there is little research intohealthcare professionals’ perceptions of important outcomes prior to participation in ethics case reflectionrounds in childhood cancer care. The aim was to explorehealthcare professionals’ perceptions of outcomes of ECR rounds important for handling moral challenges prior to participation in ECR rounds in childhood cancer care.METHODS: This study is based on qualitative data. Healthcare professionals, mostly representing registered nurses, nursing assistants and physicians,working at childhood cancer care centres in Sweden, were invited to respond to the translated and content-validated European Moral Case Deliberation questionnaire,before participating in regular ECR rounds. The main open-ended question included in the questionnaire was analysed according to systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Data was collected from 161 responses from the healthcare professionals who were invited to participate. The responses included healthcare professionals’ perceptions of which ethics case reflection round-related outcomes they found important for handling moral challenges. Three different themes of important outcomes emerged from the analysis of the data: Inter-professional wellbeing, Being in a professional comfort zone, and Improved quality of care. The themes are related to teams, individuals and care, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care considered it important that ethics support could enhance the well-being of interprofessional teams, support healthcare professionals on an individual level and improve quality of care. To realize these perceived important outcomes, conditions for ECR rounds need to be improved. The results of this study can be used in future training for facilitators of ECR rounds, as well as providing information to healthcare managers wishing to implement this kind of ethics support.

Sisk et al. (2020) discuss an understudied but highly relevant subject: the relationship between developing ethical norms and the actual implementation of these norms. They argue that, in order to ...

Claire Horner and colleagues have written a thorough, critical yet constructive analysis of the HEC-C Program in order to further professionalize the field of ethics support and ensure competence a...

Treatment teams providing transgender-affirming medical care are inherently faced with various kinds of moral and ethical dilemmas and questions, which are becoming even more pressing due to increasing treatment numbers and public attention for transgender care. Little is known about what kinds of moral and ethical challenges manifest in clinical practice. The aim of the present research was to map the moral and ethical challenges of healthcare professionals working in a specialized multidisciplinary transgender care center. Over a period of 7 months, during a focused ethnographic study, data were collected through participant observation of multidisciplinary team meetings, observation of individual psychodiagnostic assessment sessions with clients, and analysis of transcripts and reports of a series of moral case deliberations. A thematic content analysis of the data identified various implicit and explicit moral and ethical challenges around the following six themes: (1) assessing eligibility; (2) content of treatment; (3) sequential order of the treatment steps; (4) role of the clinical guidelines; (5) differing notions regarding gender identity, and (6) decision-making process. Our research provides a detailed insight into the way healthcare professionals experience these moral and ethical challenges and how they are related to (local) guidelines, the multidisciplinary character of GD care, and its inherent implicit and explicit gender norms. Our findings suggest that good transgender care may profit from continuous multidisciplinary deliberation of and sensitivity toward the normative dimension of transgender care. The paper ends with recommendations for ethics support mechanisms in transgender care.

This paper responds to the commentaries from Stacy Carter and Alan Cribb. We pick up on two main themes in our response. First, we reflect on how the process of setting standards for empirical bioethics research entails drawing boundaries around what research counts as empirical bioethics research, and we discuss whether the standards agreed in the consensus process draw these boundaries correctly. Second, we expand on the discussion in the original paper of the role and significance of the concept of ‘integrating’ empirical methods and ethical argument as a standard for research practice within empirical bioethics.

"Promoting research integrity is crucial to achieve high quality and relevant results, and preserve public trust in science. In recent years, many codes of conducts, guidelines and regulations on national and international level, such as the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, have been issued to tackle this issue. However, these documents are often perceived as an externally imposed set of rules that researchers need to comply with in order to tick the box of integrity and get their research done. These research integrity efforts are important, but are they enough? We argue that in order to foster ‘good’ science, educating ‘good’ researchers is crucial. To respond to these issues, the VIRT2UE project has created an open source online training for researchers and educators that supports the internalization of the practices and principles of good science by building upon a virtue-based approach. Core elements of this approach are reflections on the intrinsic motivation of researchers and the cultivation of those moral characters which support the practices and principles of good science. The VIRT2UE training consists of a toolbox with training materials which can be used both online and offline, easy to use and adaptable to context. Starting from the assumption that virtues are learned through experience and by example, we will show what role trainers and educators can play in promoting a virtue-based approach to research integrity and what this implies for their own education and professionalization as trainers. "

"In Europe, Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) has been well-known and established as a form of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) and implemented in many international (health care) institutions. Since 2007 Amsterdam UMC organizes training for professionals to become a facilitator of MCD. To support and asses the development of those future facilitators MCD, an instrument has been developed which can be used by both trainees and trainers. The instrument consists of a self-reflection form and an observation form. Both forms are almost identical and contain a part of open questions reflecting upon the personal learning goals of the trainee and a part of 56 closed questions. The part of closed questions contains concrete descriptions of preferred skills and attitude of the MCD facilitator trainee, related to MCD in general and the specific steps of the Dilemma method and the Socratic Dialogue in particular. Special attention is being paid to concrete actions for fostering a dialogue and deepening the moral inquiry. The instrument can also be used by trained and more experienced facilitators of MCD to reflect upon their acquired skills and attitude, and indirectly on the quality of CES they provide. In this presentation we will present the instrument and share our experiences in using the two forms in order to train and assess (the quality of) facilitators of MCD. Furthermore, we will present preliminary results of the analysis of more than 1200 forms collected in the past decade from trainings on national and international level. "

Purpose The overall aim of this study was to describe perceptions of the decision-making process in relation to participation/non-participation in ethics discussions among healthcare professionals in paediatric oncology. Methods Healthcare professionals, working at three paediatric units where ethics discussions where performed answered a study-specific questionnaire focusing on perceptions of involvement, influence, responsibility and understanding of ethics decision-making. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, non-parametric paired t-tests and correlation tests. Results Participation in ethics discussions was related to perceptions of greater involvement and the possibility of influencing decisions, as well as formal/shared responsibility for the ethics decisions related to patient care. Medical doctors and registered nurses perception of involvement in decisions, possibility to influence and responsibility decreased when they were not present during the ethics discussion or when no ethics discussion was conducted at all. Healthcare professionals had a generally good understanding of the ethical issues and the ethics decisions. The whole group considered medical doctors to be the most important participants in the ethics discussions, followed by patients/family. Healthcare professionals wanted more teamwork and viewed ethics discussions as very helpful for teamwork when dealing with ethical issues in paediatric oncology. Conclusions Ethics discussions in paediatric oncology practice increases the involvement within and the understanding of the decision-making process about ethical decisions. The understanding is not always dependent on participation, indicating a great trust in team members. Based on these findings the implementation of a structure for ethics support in paediatric oncology where patients/families are integrated is recommended.

Background Empirical evidence shows that family involvement (FI) can play a pivotal role in the coping and recovery of persons with severe mental illness (SMI). Nevertheless, various studies demonstrate that FI in mental healthcare services is often not (sufficiently) realized. In order to develop more insights, this scoping review gives an overview of how various stakeholders conceptualize, perceive and experience barriers to FI. Central questions are: 1) What are the main barriers to FI reported by the different key stakeholders (i.e. the persons with SMI, their families and the professionals, and 2) What are the differences and similarities between the various stakeholders’ perspectives on these barriers. Methods A systematic search into primary studies regarding FI was conducted in four databases: Medline/Pubmed, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Web of Knowledge with the use of a PICO scheme. Thematic analysis focused on stakeholder perspectives (i.e. which stakeholder group reports the barrier) and types of barriers (i.e. which types of barriers are addressed). Results Thirty three studies were included. The main barriers reported by the stakeholder groups reveal important similarities and differences between the stakeholder groups and were related to: 1) the person with SMI, 2) the family, 3) the professionals, 4) the organization of care and 5) the culture-paradigm. Discussion Our stakeholder approach elicits the different stakeholders’ concepts, presuppositions and experiences of barriers to FI, and gives fundamental insights on how to deal with barriers to FI. The stakeholders differing interpretations and perceptions of the barriers related to FI is closely related to the inherent complexity involved in FI in itself. In order to deal better with these barriers, openly discussing and reflecting upon each other’s normative understandings of barriers is needed. Conclusions Differences in perceptions of barriers to FI can itself be a barrier. To deal with barriers to FI, a dialogical approach on how the different stakeholders perceive and value FI and its barriers is required. Methods such as moral case deliberation or systematic ethics reflections can be useful.

The current process towards formalization within evaluation research, in particular the use of pre-set standards and the focus on predefined outcomes, implies a shift of ownership from the people who are actually involved in real clinical ethics support services (CESS) in a specific context to external stakeholders who increasingly gain a say in what 'good CESS' should look like. The question is whether this does justice to the insights and needs of those who are directly involved in actual CESS practices, be it as receivers or providers. We maintain that those actually involved in concrete CESS practices should also be involved in its evaluation, not only as respondents, but also in setting the agenda of the evaluation process and in articulating the criteria by which CESS is evaluated. Therefore, we propose a participatory approach to CESS evaluation. It focuses on (1) the concrete contexts in which CESS takes place, (2) reflective and dialogical learning processes, and (3) how to be democratic and inclusive. In particular, this approach to CESS evaluation is akin to realist evaluation, dialogical evaluation, and responsive evaluation. An example of a participatory approach to evaluating CESS is presented and some critical issues concerning this approach are discussed.