What outcomes of moral case deliberations are perceived important for healthcare professionals to handle moral challenges? A national cross-sectional study in paediatric oncology.
Clinical ethics support services
Healthcare professional
Moral case deliberation
Outcome
Paediatric oncology
Survey
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 11 2022
11 11 2022
Historique:
received:
24
01
2022
accepted:
27
10
2022
entrez:
11
11
2022
pubmed:
12
11
2022
medline:
16
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In paediatric oncology, healthcare professionals face moral challenges. Clinical ethics support services, such as moral case deliberation (MCD), aim to assist them in dealing with these challenges. Yet, healthcare professionals can have different expectations and goals related to clinical ethics support services. In this study, the perceptions held by healthcare professionals (nursing assistants, registered nurses, physicians, and others) regarding the importance of possible outcomes of MCDs, prior to implementation of MCDs, were investigated. A multisite, cross-sectional, quantitative study was performed at all six Paediatric Oncology Centres in Sweden. Healthcare professionals answered the Euro-MCD instrument with 26 potential MCD outcomes using a scale from Not important (1) to Very important (4). Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were carried out. All outcomes were rated high, i.e., between 3.12 and 3.78. More open communication, developing skills to analyse ethically difficult situations, better mutual understanding, and deciding on concrete actions were rated as most important. Understanding of ethical theories and critical examination of policies were rated less important. Most often nursing assistants rated higher and physicians lower than the other professions did. Women and participants without previous experience of MCDs perceived outcomes as more important. There were differences between centres as one centre had significantly higher, and one centre had significantly lower ratings compared to the others. It is clear that healthcare professionals want MCDs to improve teamwork and skills in order to analyse and manage ethically difficult situations. When comparing to previous research about important MCD outcomes, there were similarities in what healthcare professionals consider to be important when handling moral challenges regardless of country and potential differences in healthcare settings and systems, such as paediatric vs. adult care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In paediatric oncology, healthcare professionals face moral challenges. Clinical ethics support services, such as moral case deliberation (MCD), aim to assist them in dealing with these challenges. Yet, healthcare professionals can have different expectations and goals related to clinical ethics support services.
METHODS
In this study, the perceptions held by healthcare professionals (nursing assistants, registered nurses, physicians, and others) regarding the importance of possible outcomes of MCDs, prior to implementation of MCDs, were investigated. A multisite, cross-sectional, quantitative study was performed at all six Paediatric Oncology Centres in Sweden. Healthcare professionals answered the Euro-MCD instrument with 26 potential MCD outcomes using a scale from Not important (1) to Very important (4). Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were carried out.
RESULTS
All outcomes were rated high, i.e., between 3.12 and 3.78. More open communication, developing skills to analyse ethically difficult situations, better mutual understanding, and deciding on concrete actions were rated as most important. Understanding of ethical theories and critical examination of policies were rated less important. Most often nursing assistants rated higher and physicians lower than the other professions did. Women and participants without previous experience of MCDs perceived outcomes as more important. There were differences between centres as one centre had significantly higher, and one centre had significantly lower ratings compared to the others.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that healthcare professionals want MCDs to improve teamwork and skills in order to analyse and manage ethically difficult situations. When comparing to previous research about important MCD outcomes, there were similarities in what healthcare professionals consider to be important when handling moral challenges regardless of country and potential differences in healthcare settings and systems, such as paediatric vs. adult care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36368984
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00851-3
pii: 10.1186/s12910-022-00851-3
pmc: PMC9652809
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
108Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Med Health Care Philos. 2003;6(3):227-33
pubmed: 14620459
Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 Mar;79:70-83
pubmed: 29202313
Health Care Anal. 2013 Dec;21(4):323-37
pubmed: 21912993
J Adolesc Health. 2011 Jul;49(1):53-7
pubmed: 21700157
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Nov 6;19(1):85
pubmed: 30400913
Int J Pharm Pract. 2011 Feb;19(1):21-9
pubmed: 21235656
HEC Forum. 2015 Mar;27(1):47-59
pubmed: 25218568
BMC Med Ethics. 2015 Apr 17;16:25
pubmed: 25889307
J Med Ethics. 2008 Feb;34(2):120-4
pubmed: 18234952
Scand J Caring Sci. 2003 Sep;17(3):285-92
pubmed: 12919464
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Jul 22;17(1):45
pubmed: 27448597
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Nov-Dec;26(7-8):2351-2363
pubmed: 30411660
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2008 Nov;30(11):807-14
pubmed: 18989157
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015 Mar;47(2):117-25
pubmed: 25440758
Nurs Ethics. 2012 Mar;19(2):183-95
pubmed: 22457383
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Apr 08;15:30
pubmed: 24712735
Arch Dis Child. 2016 Aug;101(8):701-8
pubmed: 26801075
Health Care Anal. 2009 Sep;17(3):217-35
pubmed: 19139992
Nurs Ethics. 2013 Sep;20(6):617-31
pubmed: 23426235
J Med Ethics. 2007 Jan;33(1):51-7
pubmed: 17209113
Bioethics. 2017 May;31(4):246-257
pubmed: 28417518
Cancer Nurs. 2015 Mar-Apr;38(2):125-32
pubmed: 24945260
J Med Ethics. 2008 May;34(5):407-13
pubmed: 18448727
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010 Jul 1;54(7):1000-8
pubmed: 20405517
Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(1):50-1
pubmed: 25562230
Springerplus. 2013 May 14;2(1):222
pubmed: 23853744
Nurs Ethics. 2016 Jun;23(4):421-31
pubmed: 25736273
Klin Padiatr. 2008 May-Jun;220(3):166-74
pubmed: 18478489
Nurs Ethics. 2018 Mar;25(2):199-211
pubmed: 29529973