Two Approaches of ‘Proactive Consultation’: Towards Well-Functioning Clinical Ethics Consultation

Author:

Kogetsu AtsushiORCID,Koimizu JungenORCID

Abstract

AbstractIn recent years, the global need for clinical ethics consultation services (CECS) has increased to address ethical challenges, dilemmas, and moral distress in clinical environments. In Japan, many hospitals have introduced CECS over the past decade, but few such services work effectively because of the small number of consultations. To address this, we propose two proactive ethics consultation methods: inter-professional ethics rounds and patient note reviews. This paper provides a detailed explanation of these methods, complete with scenarios based on actual cases. These methods can make CECS ‘well-functioning’ by shifting the starting points of consultation from consultees to CECS providers. We then examine the impact and value of proactive ethics consultation as well as four critical factors for its success including attitude, positioning, and competency of proactive consultation teams. We believe our suggestions will provide valuable insights for future clinical ethics consultations and stimulate academic debate about what constitutes a ‘well-functioning’ CECS.

Funder

Osaka University

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference15 articles.

1. Andereck, William S., J. WestlyMcGaughey, Lawrence J. Schneiderman, and Albert R. Jonsen. 2014. Seeking to reduce nonbeneficial treatment in the ICU: An exploratory trial of proactive ethics intervention. Critical Care Medicine 42 (4): 824–830. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000000034.

2. Brännström, Margareta, Catarina Fischer Grönlund, Karin Zingmark, and Anna Söderberg. 2019. Meeting in a ‘free-zone’: Clinical ethical support in integrated heart-failure and palliative care. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 18 (7): 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515119851621.

3. Cederquist, Lynette, Jamie Nicole LaBuzetta, Edward Cachay, Lawrence Friedman, Cassia Yi, Laura Dibsie, and Yiran Zhang. 2021. Identifying disincentives to ethics consultation requests among physicians, advance practice providers, and nurses: A quality improvement all staff survey at a tertiary academic medical center. BMC Medical Ethics 22: 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00613-7.

4. Dowa, Yuri, Yoshiyuki Takimoto, Masahiko Kawai, and Takashi Shiihara. 2022. Hospital ethics committees in Japan: current status from an exploratory survey 2012–2015. American Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health 8 (5): 1–6. https://www.ajpmph.com/ajpmph-articles/hospital-ethics-committees-in-japan-current-status-from-an-exploratory-survey-20122015-88508.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2024.

5. McClimans, Leah, Geah Pressgrove, and Emmaling Campbell. 2019. Objectives and outcomes of clinical ethics services: A Delphi study. Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (12): 761–769. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105203.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3