Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: a Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals' priorities.
Adult
Aged
Attitude of Health Personnel
Cooperative Behavior
Emotions
Ethics Consultation
/ organization & administration
Ethics, Clinical
Europe
Female
Humans
Inservice Training
/ organization & administration
Interpersonal Relations
Male
Middle Aged
Morals
Professional-Patient Relations
/ ethics
Qualitative Research
Young Adult
applied and professional ethics
clinical ethics
education for health care professionals
ethics committees/consultation
health personnel
Journal
Journal of medical ethics
ISSN: 1473-4257
Titre abrégé: J Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7513619
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
03
01
2018
revised:
04
06
2019
accepted:
05
06
2019
pubmed:
20
7
2019
medline:
8
10
2020
entrez:
20
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument (Euro-MCD) instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation. A North European field survey among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used. All outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%-97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. 'Better interactions with patient/family' emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents. The findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of empirical research regarding the outcomes of such clinical ethics support methods as moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical research in how healthcare professionals perceive potential outcomes is needed in order to evaluate the value and effectiveness of ethics support; and help to design future outcomes research. The aim was to use the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcome Instrument (Euro-MCD) instrument to examine the importance of various MCD outcomes, according to healthcare professionals, prior to participation.
METHODS
A North European field survey among healthcare professionals drawn from 73 workplaces in a variety of healthcare settings in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The Euro-MCD instrument was used.
RESULTS
All outcomes regarding the domains of moral reflexivity, moral attitude, emotional support, collaboration, impact at organisational level and concrete results, were perceived as very or quite important by 76%-97% of the 703 respondents. Outcomes regarding collaboration and concrete results were perceived as most important. Outcomes assessed as least important were mostly about moral attitude. 'Better interactions with patient/family' emerged as a new domain from the qualitative analysis. Dutch respondents perceived most of the outcomes as significantly less important than the Scandinavians, especially regarding emotional support. Furthermore, men, those who were younger, and physician-respondents scored most of the outcomes as statistically significantly less important compared with the other respondents.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings indicate a need for a broad instrument such as the Euro-MCD. Outcomes related to better interactions between professionals and patients must also be included in the future. The empirical findings raise the normative question of whether outcomes that were perceived as less important, such as
Identifiants
pubmed: 31320403
pii: medethics-2018-104745
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104745
pmc: PMC6817990
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
608-616Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Jun 9;:969733019849454
pubmed: 31177947
Bioethics. 2011 Sep;25(7):383-93
pubmed: 21790692
Psychol Aging. 1994 Dec;9(4):513-9
pubmed: 7893422
Med Health Care Philos. 2008 Mar;11(1):17-25
pubmed: 17909984
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Health Econ. 2007 Feb;16(2):163-78
pubmed: 16941555
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Apr 08;15:30
pubmed: 24712735
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Apr 17;16:25
pubmed: 25889307
Bioethics. 2017 May;31(4):234-236
pubmed: 28417520
J Med Ethics. 2008 Feb;34(2):120-4
pubmed: 18234952
HEC Forum. 2014 Jun;26(2):95-109
pubmed: 24078268
Nurs Ethics. 2016 Dec;23(8):825-837
pubmed: 25991657
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2009 Fall;18(4):406-19
pubmed: 19715627
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Sep 7;17(1):630
pubmed: 28882150
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Oct 07;13:167
pubmed: 26446159
Med Health Care Philos. 2014 Aug;17(3):365-75
pubmed: 24366599
Health Care Anal. 2009 Sep;17(3):217-35
pubmed: 19139992
Nurs Ethics. 2013 Sep;20(6):617-31
pubmed: 23426235
Bioethics. 2017 May;31(4):246-257
pubmed: 28417518
J Med Ethics. 2008 May;34(5):407-13
pubmed: 18448727
Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(1):50-1
pubmed: 25562230
Nurs Ethics. 2016 Mar;23(2):203-13
pubmed: 25527354
Med Health Care Philos. 2018 Dec;21(4):467-477
pubmed: 29243015
J Med Ethics. 2011 Aug;37(8):456-60
pubmed: 21511970
Nurs Ethics. 2015 Feb;22(1):32-42
pubmed: 24482261
Nurs Ethics. 2015 Jun;22(4):452-66
pubmed: 25091004
Nurs Ethics. 2018 Mar;25(2):212-229
pubmed: 28421865