Ethics support for ethics support: the development of the Confidentiality Compass for dealing with moral challenges concerning (breaching) confidentiality in moral case deliberation.
Breaching confidentiality
Confidentiality
Development process
Ethics support tools
Moral case deliberation
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 May 2024
03 May 2024
Historique:
received:
03
03
2023
accepted:
18
03
2024
medline:
4
5
2024
pubmed:
4
5
2024
entrez:
3
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Confidentiality is one of the central preconditions for clinical ethics support (CES). CES cases which generate moral questions for CES staff concerning (breaching) confidentiality of what has been discussed during CES can cause moral challenges. Currently, there seems to be no clear policy or guidance regarding how CES staff can or should deal with these moral challenges related to (not) breaching confidentiality within CES. Moral case deliberation is a specific kind of CES. Based on experiences and research into MCD facilitators' needs for ethics support in this regard, we jointly developed an ethics support tool for MCD facilitators: the Confidentiality Compass. This paper describes the iterative developmental process, including our theoretical viewpoints and reflections on characteristics of CES tools in general. The content and goals of the ethics support tool, which contains four elements, is described. Part A is about providing information on the concept of confidentiality in MCD, part B is a moral compass with reflective questions, part C focuses on courses of action for careful handling of moral challenges related to confidentiality. Part D contains general lessons, best practices and tips for dealing with confidentiality in future cases. This paper concludes with providing some lessons-learned related to developing ethics support tools and some reflections on issues of quality and normativity of ethics support tools.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Confidentiality is one of the central preconditions for clinical ethics support (CES). CES cases which generate moral questions for CES staff concerning (breaching) confidentiality of what has been discussed during CES can cause moral challenges. Currently, there seems to be no clear policy or guidance regarding how CES staff can or should deal with these moral challenges related to (not) breaching confidentiality within CES. Moral case deliberation is a specific kind of CES.
METHOD
METHODS
Based on experiences and research into MCD facilitators' needs for ethics support in this regard, we jointly developed an ethics support tool for MCD facilitators: the Confidentiality Compass. This paper describes the iterative developmental process, including our theoretical viewpoints and reflections on characteristics of CES tools in general.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The content and goals of the ethics support tool, which contains four elements, is described. Part A is about providing information on the concept of confidentiality in MCD, part B is a moral compass with reflective questions, part C focuses on courses of action for careful handling of moral challenges related to confidentiality. Part D contains general lessons, best practices and tips for dealing with confidentiality in future cases.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This paper concludes with providing some lessons-learned related to developing ethics support tools and some reflections on issues of quality and normativity of ethics support tools.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38702729
doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01039-7
pii: 10.1186/s12910-024-01039-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
49Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Dauwerse L, Stolper M, Widdershoven G, Molewijk B. Prevalence and characteristics of moral case deliberation in Dutch health care. Med Health Care Philos. 2014;17(3):365–75.
doi: 10.1007/s11019-013-9537-6
Spijkerboer R. Moral case deliberation and students’ and professionals’ way of dealing with moral challenges in their care for young people. 2019.
Schaap AI, Ligtenberg WMR, de Vet HCW, Molewijk AC, Stolper MM. Moral dilemmas of Dutch prison staff; a thematic overview from all professional disciplines. Corrections. 2024;9(2):246–63.
van Baarle EM. Ethics education in the military: Fostering reflective practice and moral competence: Ministerie van Defensie-NLDA. 2018.
Kowalski M. Ethics on the radar: exploring the relevance of ethics support in counterterrorism. Leiden: Leiden University; 2020.
Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G, editors. Learning by doing. Training health care professionals to become facilitator of moral case deliberation. HEC forum. 2015;7:47–59.
Ligtenberg WMR, Molewijk AC, Stolper MM. An empirical investigation into moral challenges of (breaching) confidentiality and needs for ethics support when facilitating moral case deliberation. Int J Ethics Educ. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-024-00185-1 .
Weidema FC, Molewijk A, Kamsteeg F, Widdershoven GA. Managers’ views on and experiences with moral case deliberation in nursing teams. J Nurs Manag. 2015;23(8):1067–75.
doi: 10.1111/jonm.12253
Ligtenberg WMR, Molewijk AC, Stolper MM. Confidentiality questions in clinical ethics support. An in-depth study about the moral challenges, considerations and possible ways to deal with (breaching) confidentiality in MCD. Submitted. 2023.
Ferguson AH. The role of history in debates regarding the boundaries of medical confidentiality and privacy. J Med Law Ethics. 2015;3(1–2):65.
doi: 10.7590/221354015X14319325750070
Kottow MH. Medical confidentiality: an intransigent and absolute obligation. J Med Ethics. 1986;12(3):117–22.
doi: 10.1136/jme.12.3.117
Snelling P, Quick O. Confidentiality and public interest disclosure: a framework to evaluate UK healthcare professional regulatory guidance. Med Law Int. 2022;22(1):3–32.
doi: 10.1177/09685332221079124
Collingridge M, Miller S, Bowles W. Privacy and confidentiality in social work. Aust Soc Work. 2001;54(2):3–13.
doi: 10.1080/03124070108414319
Baker R. A draft model aggregated code of ethics for bioethicists. Am J Bioeth. 2005;5(5):33–41.
doi: 10.1080/15265160500245188
Latham SR. Professionalization of clinical ethics consultation: defining (down) the code. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(5):54–6.
doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1026235
Tarzian AJ, Wocial LD, Committee ACECA. A code of ethics for health care ethics consultants: journey to the present and implications for the field. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(5):38–51.
doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1021966
Rasmussen LM. Patient advocacy in clinical ethics consultation. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(8):1–9.
doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.692434
Simon A, Zang C, Nauck F. Patientendaten und Schweigepflicht in der Klinischen Ethikberatung-Ergebnisse einer empirischen Befragung. Medizinrecht. 2021;39:340–5.
doi: 10.1007/s00350-021-5841-y
Simon A. Empfehlungen zur Schweigepflicht und zum Datenschutz in der klinischen Ethikberatung. Medizinrecht. 2021;39(4):345.
doi: 10.1007/s00350-021-5842-x
Hartman L, Inguaggiato G, Widdershoven G, Wensing-Kruger A, Molewijk B. Theory and practice of integrative clinical ethics support: a joint experience within gender affirmative care. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21(1):1–13.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00520-3
Hartman LA, Metselaar S, Molewijk A, Edelbroek H, Widdershoven GA. Developing an ethics support tool for dealing with dilemmas around client autonomy based on moral case deliberations. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19(1):1–11.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0335-9
Hartman L, Metselaar S, Widdershoven G, Molewijk B. Developing a ‘moral compass tool’based on moral case deliberations: a pragmatic hermeneutic approach to clinical ethics. Bioethics. 2019;33(9):1012–21.
doi: 10.1111/bioe.12617
van Schaik MV, Pasman HR, Widdershoven G, Metselaar S. Participatory development of CURA, a clinical ethics support instrument for palliative care. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23(1):1–12.
de Snoo-Trimp J, de Vries A, Molewijk B, Hein I. How to deal with moral challenges around the decision-making competence in transgender adolescent care? Development of an ethics support tool. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23(1):1–15.
Roberts AJ. The Patients Changing Things Together (PATCHATT) ethics pack: a tool to support inclusive ethical decision-making in the development of a community-based palliative care intervention. Clin Ethics. 2022;0(0):14777509221091092.
Molewijk AC, Abma TA, Stolper M, Widdershoven GAM. Teaching ethics in the clinic. The theory and practice of moral case deliberation. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(2):120–4.
doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.018580
Abma T, Visse M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Reflectie en participatie in zorg. Amsterdam: Boom/Lemma; 2010.
Inguaggiato G, Metselaar S, Porz R, Widdershoven G. A pragmatist approach to clinical ethics support: overcoming the perils of ethical pluralism. Med Health Care Philos. 2019;22(3):427–38.
doi: 10.1007/s11019-018-09882-3
Millstein K. Confidentiality in direct social-work practice: inevitable challenges and ethical dilemmas. Fam Soc. 2000;81(3):270–82.
doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.1018
Beech M. Confidentiality in health care: conflicting legal and ethical issues. Nurs Stand. 2007;21(21):42–7.
doi: 10.7748/ns.21.21.42.s52
Stolper M, Molewijk B, Widdershoven G. Bioethics education in clinical settings: theory and practice of the dilemma method of moral case deliberation. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–10.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0125-1
Abma TA, Molewijk B, Widdershoven GA. Good care in ongoing dialogue. Improving the quality of care through moral deliberation and responsive evaluation. Health care analysis. 2009;17(3):217–35.
doi: 10.1007/s10728-008-0102-z
Abma T, Widdershoven G. Dialogical ethics and responsive evaluation as a framework for patient participation. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(6):27–9.
doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.900143
Svantesson M, Silén M, James I. It’s not all about moral reasoning: understanding the content of moral case deliberation. Nurs Ethics. 2018;25(2):212–29.
doi: 10.1177/0969733017700235
Span-Sluyter CA, Lavrijsen J, van Leeuwen E, Koopmans RT. Moral dilemmas and conflicts concerning patients in a vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome: shared or non-shared decision making? A qualitative study of the professional perspective in two moral case deliberations. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19(1):1–12.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0247-8
Evans N, Schmolmueller A, Stolper M, Inguaggiato G, Hooghiemstra A, Tokalic R, et al. VIRT2UE: a European train-the-trainer programme for teaching research integrity. Res Ethics. 2023;0(0):1–23.
Evans N, Schmolmueller A, Stolper M, Inguaggiato G, Hooghiemstra A, Tokalic R, et al. VIRT2UE: a European train-the-trainer programme for teaching research integrity. 2022.
MacIntyre A. After virtue a study in moral theory. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., Ltd; 1981.
Hartman L, Widdershoven G, de Vries A, Wensing-Kruger A, Heijer Md, Steensma T, Molewijk B. Integrative clinical ethics support in gender affirmative care: lessons learned. HEC Forum. 2019;31(3):241–60.