Ethics Consultation Services: The Scenario

Linkeviciute, Alma; Sanchini, Virginia

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27690-8_1

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the three functions that are typically attributed to CECs—ethics consultation, bioethics training, and revision and/or development of ethics policies—the mostly evaluated is ethics consultation, being the only subject assessed in sixteen studies (55.2%) (2, 4–6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 25–29). This function may be performed in different ways, often in relation to the context in which the CEC is located (Boniolo and Sanchini 2016 ; Fournier 2015 ; Linkeviciute and Sanchini 2016 ). The predominant expression, according to our review, is “ ethics/clinical ethics consultation” (2, 4, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25–29).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review

Crico

Sanchini

Casali

et al. 2020

Med Health Care and Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs), as distinct from Research Ethics Committees, were originally established with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in managing controversial clinical ethical issues. However, it is still unclear whether they manage to accomplish this task and what is their impact on clinical practice. This systematic review aims to collect available assessments of CECs’ performance as reported in literature, in order to evaluate CECs’ effectiveness. We retrieved all literature published up to November 2019 in six databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Philosopher’s Index, Embase and Web of Science), following PRISMA guidelines. We included only articles specifically addressing CECs and providing any form of CECs performance assessment. Twenty-nine articles were included. Ethics consultation was the most evaluated of CECs’ functions. We did not find standardized tools for measuring CECs’ efficacy, but 33% of studies considered “user satisfaction” as an indicator, with 94% of them reporting an average positive perception of CECs’ impact. Changes in patient treatment and a decrease of moral distress in health personnel were reported as additional outcomes of ethics consultation. The highly diverse ways by which CECs carry out their activities make CECs’ evaluation difficult. The adoption of shared criteria would be desirable to provide a reliable answer to the question about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, in general both users and providers consider CECs as helpful, relevant to their work, able to improve the quality of care. Their main function is ethics consultation, while less attention seems to be devoted to bioethics education and policy formation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We found that different conversation methodologies were used to carry out consultations (Linkeviciute and Sanchini 2016 ). This is in line with the fact that there is no unique mandatory procedure to perform them, though some countries proposed standards for ethics consultation (American Society for Bioethics & Humanities 2011 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%