Clinical Ethics Support Services Research Articles

Exploration of clinical ethics consultation in Uganda: a case study of Uganda Cancer Institute

IntroductionGlobally, healthcare providers (HCPs), hospital administrators, patients and their caretakers are increasingly confronted with complex moral, social, cultural, ethical, and legal dilemmas during clinical care. In high-income countries (HICs), formal and informal clinical ethics support services (CESSs) have been used to resolve bioethical conflicts among HCPs, patients, and their families. There is limited evidence about mechanisms used to resolve these issues as well as experiences and perspectives of the stakeholders that utilize them in most African countries including Uganda.MethodsThis phenomenological qualitative study utilized in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect data from Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) staff, patients, and caretakers who were purposively selected. Data was analyzed deductively and inductively yielding themes and sub-themes that were used to develop a codebook.ResultsThe study revealed there was no formal committee or mechanism dedicated to resolving ethical dilemmas at the UCI. Instead, ethical dilemmas were addressed in six forums: individual consultations, tumor board meetings, morbidity and mortality meetings (MMMs), core management meetings, rewards and sanctions committee meetings, and clinical departmental meetings. Participants expressed apprehension regarding the efficacy of these fora due to their non-ethics related agendas as well as members lacking training in medical ethics and the necessary experience to effectively resolve ethical dilemmas.ConclusionThe fora employed at the UCI to address ethical dilemmas were implicit, involving decisions made through various structures without the guidance of personnel well-versed in medical or clinical ethics. There was a strong recommendation from participants to establish a multidisciplinary clinical ethics committee comprising members who are trained, skilled, and experienced in medical and clinical ethics.

Artificial Intelligence to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients: a survey among German anesthesiologists and internists

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various healthcare domains, where AI algorithms sometimes even outperform human specialists. However, the field of clinical ethics has remained largely untouched by AI advances. This study explores the attitudes of anesthesiologists and internists towards the use of AI-driven preference prediction tools to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients.MethodsA questionnaire was developed and pretested among medical students. The questionnaire was distributed to 200 German anesthesiologists and 200 German internists, thereby focusing on physicians who often encounter patients lacking decision-making capacity. The questionnaire covered attitudes toward AI-driven preference prediction, availability and utilization of Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS), and experiences with ethically challenging situations. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis was performed. Qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis in a mixed inductive-deductive approach.ResultsParticipants were predominantly male (69.3%), with ages ranging from 27 to 77. Most worked in nonacademic hospitals (82%). Physicians generally showed hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction, citing concerns about the loss of individuality and humanity, lack of explicability in AI results, and doubts about AI’s ability to encompass the ethical deliberation process. In contrast, physicians had a more positive opinion of CESS. Availability of CESS varied, with 81.8% of participants reporting access. Among those without access, 91.8% expressed a desire for CESS.Physicians' reluctance toward AI-driven preference prediction aligns with concerns about transparency, individuality, and human-machine interaction. While AI could enhance the accuracy of predictions and reduce surrogate burden, concerns about potential biases, de-humanisation, and lack of explicability persist.ConclusionsGerman physicians frequently encountering incapacitated patients exhibit hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction but hold a higher esteem for CESS. Addressing concerns about individuality, explicability, and human-machine roles may facilitate the acceptance of AI in clinical ethics. Further research into patient and surrogate perspectives is needed to ensure AI aligns with patient preferences and values in complex medical decisions.

The Diversity Compass: a clinical ethics support instrument for dialogues on diversity in healthcare organizations

BackgroundIncreasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice.MethodsWe used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation.ResultsThe Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur.ConclusionsThe Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations.

280 PERCEIVED NEED FOR A CLINICAL ETHICS SUPPORT SERVICE AT AN IRISH UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

Abstract Background Ethics are the set of moral principles that guide a person’s behaviour. Ethical issues are a key component of healthcare and frequently arise in the management of hospitalized older patients. To improve decision-making and reduce burden on individual hospital staff, Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) have been widely-integrated into care pathways internationally. However, the need for CESS has received little attention in Irish hospitals. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of the ethical situation and CESS readiness at a tertiary hospital in Ireland was collected from July-October 2021 and in February 2022 via hard copies and online collection (SurveyMonkey). Both clinical (medicine, nursing other patient care role) and non-clinical (administrative, clerical, ICT, HR, general support staff and management) staff participated. Descriptive statistics were assessed taking the valid percentages, mean 5-item Likert scores and Friedman Test mean rank for ten ranked statements. Results In total, 199 people (13% response rate) completed the survey. Staff were largely (76%) clinical and the majority were qualified >10 years (57%). In all, 78% reported that ethical issues arise in the role (83% clinical staff, 59% non-clinical staff). Most (63%) were unsure who to contact about ethical concerns, instead seeking informal advice from colleagues (>90%). The majority of participants were interested in additional ethical training, especially on decision-making capacity (mean interest 4.18 out of 5), strategies for working with challenging patient/family situations (4.07 out of 5) and end-of-life care (4.06 out of 5). Out of ten options assessed, participants preferenced the development of a formal clinical ethics committee over education and training or the provision of educational materials. Conclusion Ethical issues commonly arise when caring for older hospitalized patients. This study found a perceived need and widespread interest in additional education as well as formal approaches to develop a hospital-based CESS, centred around a formal committee structure.

Embracing clinical ethics support services in the UK veterinary profession

Veterinary practitioners commonly encounter ethically challenging situations (ECSs). Not only do ECSs raise questions about how to best safeguard patient welfare, they can also be emotionally challenging for those involved. In recognition of the far-reaching consequences of ECSs, human healthcare has embraced the use of clinical ethics support services (CESS). In this article, we discuss the use of CESS in human healthcare, why it matters for the veterinary profession and how CESS could be practically applied in a veterinary context.

"There Was a Sense That Our Load Had Been Lightened": Evaluating Outcomes of Virtual Ethics Rounds for Veterinary Team Members.

Clinical ethics support services (CESS) are employed in healthcare to improve patient care and help team members develop skills to recognize and navigate ethically challenging situations (ECS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of ethics rounds, one form of CESS, on veterinary team members. An anonymous, online mixed-methods survey incorporating a 15-item instrument designed to assess the outcomes of moral case deliberation originally developed for human healthcare workers (the Euro-MCD 2.0), was developed. The survey was administered to veterinary team members prior to and following participation in a 90-min virtual ethics rounds session. A total of 23 sessions of virtual ethics rounds were held. In total, 213 individuals participated, and 89 completed both surveys (response rate 41.8%). Most respondents were female (n = 70, 81%). Most were veterinarians (n = 51, 59%), followed by other veterinary team members (practice manager, animal attendant) (n = 18, 21%), veterinary nurses or animal health technicians (n = 10, 12%) and veterinary students (n = 8, 9%). Age ranged from 20 to 73 (median 41, IQR 32–52, n = 87). While there was no statistically significant difference between overall modified Euro-MCD 2.0 scores between T1 and T2, there were statistically significant changes in 7 out of 15 Euro-MCD 2.0 items in the domains of moral competence and moral teamwork. Reflexive thematic analysis of free-text responses identified themes including the types, impact and barriers to resolving ECS, the impacts of ethics rounds on veterinary team members and constraints preventing veterinary team members from speaking up in the face of ECS. While participants largely described the impact of ethics rounds as beneficial (for example, by facilitating clarification of thinking about ECS, allowing participants to see ECS from the perspective of others and providing a safe space for discussion), reflecting on ECS could be stressful for participants. Active participation in ethics rounds may be inhibited in the context of power imbalance, or in settings where bullying occurs. Overall, carefully facilitated ethics rounds has the potential to improve the ability of veterinary team members to identify and navigate ECS, and potentially mitigate moral distress.

Patient participation in Dutch ethics support: practice, ideals, challenges and recommendations—a national survey

BackgroundPatient participation in clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been marked as an important issue. There seems to be a wide variety of practices globally, but extensive theoretical or empirical studies on the matter are missing. Scarce publications indicate that, in Europe, patient participation in CESS (fused and abbreviated hereafter as: PP) varies from region to region, and per type of support. Practices vary from being non-existent, to patients being a full conversation partner. This contrasts with North America, where PP seems more or less standard. While PP seems to be on the rise in Europe, there is no data to confirm this. This study sought a deep understanding of both habits and the attitudes towards PP in the Netherlands, including respondents’ practical and normative perspectives on the matter.Methods and ResultsWe developed a national survey on PP for Dutch CESS staff. Our survey comprised a total of 25 open and close-ended questions, focused on four topics related to PP (1) goals of CESS, (2) status quo of PP, (3) ideas and ideals concerning PP, and (4) obstacles for PP.DiscussionThe four most important findings were that: (1) Patient participation in Dutch CESS is far from standard. (2) Views on patient participation are very much intertwined with the goals of ethics support. (3) Hesitations, fears and perceived obstacles for PP were not on principle and (4) Most respondents see PP as a positive opportunity, yet requiring additional training, practical guidance and experience.ConclusionsVarious normative reasons require PP. However, PP seems far from standard and somewhat rare in Dutch CESS settings. Our respondents did not raise many principled objections to PP. Instead, reasons for the lack of PP are intertwined with viewpoints on the goals of CESS, which seemingly focus on supporting health care professionals (HCPs). Training and practical guidance was thought to be helpful for gaining experience for both CESS staff and HCPs.

Morisprudence: a theoretical framework for studying the relationship linking moral case deliberation, organisational learning and quality improvement

There is a claim that clinical ethics support services (CESS) improve healthcare quality within healthcare organisations. However, there is lack of strong evidence supporting this claim. Rather, the current focus...

Clinical ethics support services during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a cross-sectional survey

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for clinical ethics support provision to ensure as far as possible fair decision making and to address healthcare workers’ moral distress.PurposeTo describe the availability,...

Developing Organisational Diversity Statements through Dialogical Clinical Ethics Support: The Role of the Clinical Ethicist

"In increasingly pluralist societies, stakeholders in healthcare do not always share a common moral perspective on health, wellbeing or good care. Growing cultural, religious, and sexual diversity among both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) require healthcare organizations to address these differences and to engage in inclusive and equitable practices. Addressing diversity, however, comes with inherent moral challenges. For example, regarding how to deal with healthcare disparities between minoritized and majoritized patients. Additionally, increasing diversity in the workforce means that HCPs moral perspectives on ‘good care’ are diversifying. Developing diversity statements is an important strategy for healthcare organizations to define their normative ideas, values, and approaches to both care and diversity. To tackle concerns of exclusion and power differences, and to ensure that these statements reflect a common ground among HCPs, healthcare organizations ought to develop diversity statements in an inclusive and participatory way. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and interventions such as Socratic Dialogues can be employed to help healthcare organizations to do so. In this presentation, we (1) argue for taking a participatory approach when supporting healthcare organisations in developing diversity statements, (2) report both on the content and the process of developing a diversity statement through CES and Socratic Dialogues, and (3) maintain that CES that supports processes of joint reflection and learning among stakeholders can be used in such an approach. We will use a case example from practice to illustrate our point. We conclude with several recommendations regarding a participatory CES approach for developing diversity statements. "

Types of Ethical Problems and Expertise in Clinical Ethics Consultation in Psychiatry - Insights From a Qualitative Empirical Ethics Study.

Background: Ethics consultation has been advocated as a valuable tool in ethically challenging clinical situations in healthcare. It is paramount for the development and implementation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) in psychiatry that interventions can address the moral needs of mental health professionals adequately and communicate the nature of the services clearly. This study explores types of ethical problems and concepts of ethical expertise as core elements of CESS in mental healthcare with the aim of contributing to the further development of ethical support in psychiatry.Methods: We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with mental health professionals and CESS members and triangulated them with four non-participant observations of ethical case consultations in psychiatry. Data were analyzed according to principles of grounded theory and are discussed from a normative perspective.Results: The analysis of the empirical data reveals a typology of three different ethical problems professionals want to refer to CESS: (1) Dyadic problems based on the relationship between patients and professionals, (2) triangular problems, where a third party is involved and affected as a side effect, and (3) problems on a systemic level. However, CESS members focus largely on types (1) and (2), while the third remains unrecognized or members do not feel responsible for these problems. Furthermore, they reflect a strong inner tension connected to their role as ethical experts which can be depicted as a dilemma. On the one hand, as ethically trained people, they reject the idea that their judgments have expert status. On the other hand, they feel that mental health professionals reach out for them to obtain guidance and that it is their responsibility to offer it.Conclusion: CESS members and professionals in mental healthcare have different ideas of the scope of responsibility of CESS. This contains the risk of misunderstandings and misconceptions and may affect the quality of consultations. It is necessary to adapt concepts of problem solving to practitioners' needs to overcome these problems. Secondly, CESS members struggle with their role as ethical experts. CESS members in psychiatry need to develop a stable professional identity. Theoretical clarification and practical training are needed.

Conceptualizing and Fostering the Quality of CES Through a Dutch National Network on CES (NEON)

The prevalence of Clinical ethics support (CES) services is increasing. Yet, questions about what quality of CES entails and how to foster the quality of CES remain. This paper describes the development of a national network (NEON), which aimed to conceptualize and foster the quality of CES in the Netherlands simultaneously. Our methodology was inspired by a responsive evaluation approach which shares some of our key theoretical presuppositions of CES. A responsive evaluation methodology engages stakeholders in developing quality standards of a certain practice, instead of evaluating a practice by predefined standards. In this paper, we describe the relationship between our theoretical viewpoint on CES and a responsive evaluation methodology. Then we describe the development of the network (NEON) and focus on three activities that exemplify our approach. In the discussion, we reflect on the similarities and differences between our approach and other international initiatives focusing on the quality of CES.

Clinical Ethics Support Services Are Not as Well-Established in Forensic Psychiatry as in General Psychiatry.

Background: Mental health care professionals deal with complex ethical dilemmas that involve the principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence. Such dilemmas are even more prominent in forensic mental health care, where the restriction of personal rights is legitimated not only by patient well-being but also by public safety interests. Little is known about either the use of formal ethics support services or specific ethical needs in forensic mental health care. Knowledge about the current structures and how they compare with those in general psychiatry would help to identify the most important ethical issues and to analyze whether there are unmet needs that might require specific ethics support.Methods: We performed a survey study in all general psychiatric and forensic psychiatric inpatient departments in Germany. The aims were to compare the availability and functioning of clinical ethics structures and to identify specific ethical needs in inpatient forensic and general mental health care.Results: Clinical ethics support was available in 74% of general psychiatric hospitals but in only 43% of all forensic psychiatric hospitals and 25% of those offering treatment for offenders with substance use disorders. Most ethics support services were interdisciplinary. The most frequently requested retrospective and prospective ethics consultations were on issues of omission and termination of treatment, coercive measures, and advance directives. Among the hospitals without access to ethics support, 71% indicated a need for training in ethics.Discussion: Our results show that ethics consultation is well established in general psychiatry, but less so in forensic psychiatry. Mental health care professionals in forensic psychiatry seem to have a need for ethics support and training in clinical ethics. We also found a difference in access to ethics structures between hospitals that treat mentally disordered offenders and those that treat offenders with substance use disorders. Further research should focus on how ethics support can be comprehensively implemented in forensic mental health care and how this might improve treatment quality and patient and staff well-being.

임상윤리서비스를 위한 핵심역량*

Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) aim to assist those confronting ethical issues that arise in the course patient treatment. CESS enhances the quality of health care by identifying and resolving ethical issues in a systematic fashion. In Korea, while the function of Institutional Ethics Committees varies somewhat from one institution to the next, most committees focus mainly on administrative services related to life-sustaining treatment. Due to improvements in medical technology and a rapidly changing social environment, a multidisciplinary approach is essential to assisting medical personnel in the area of clinical ethics. This study examines the key participants and core competencies of CESS providers and considers what knowledge or skills could improve them. It is argued that the core competencies for CESS are the ability to investigate and evaluate ethical issues and the ability to reach agreements by means of arbitration and conciliation in the case of disputes. Understanding the suffering of individual patients and recognizing the uniqueness of each patient are also essential to effective mediation on critical life-related issues. CESS providers should be trained to understand the difficulties that patients facing existential problems experience and to advocate for those patients.

Lessons learned from implementing a responsive quality assessment of clinical ethics support

BackgroundVarious forms of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) have been developed in health care organizations. Over the past years, increasing attention has been paid to the question of how to foster the quality of ethics support. In the Netherlands, a CES quality assessment project based on a responsive evaluation design has been implemented. CES practitioners themselves reflected upon the quality of ethics support within each other’s health care organizations. This study presents a qualitative evaluation of this Responsive Quality Assessment (RQA) project.MethodsCES practitioners’ experiences with and perspectives on the RQA project were collected by means of ten semi-structured interviews. Both the data collection and the qualitative data analysis followed a stepwise approach, including continuous peer review and careful documentation of the decisions.ResultsThe main findings illustrate the relevance of the RQA with regard to fostering the quality of CES by connecting to context specific issues, such as gaining support from upper management and to solidify CES services within health care organizations. Based on their participation in the RQA, CES practitioners perceived a number of changes regarding CES in Dutch health care organizations after the RQA: acknowledgement of the relevance of CES for the quality of care; CES practices being more formalized; inspiration for developing new CES-related activities and more self-reflection on existing CES practices.ConclusionsThe evaluation of the RQA shows that this method facilitates an open learning process by actively involving CES practitioners and their concrete practices. Lessons learned include that “servant leadership” and more intensive guidance of RQA participants may help to further enhance both the critical dimension and the learning process within RQA.

Role of Clinical Ethics Support Services in End-of-Life Care and Organ Transplantation

At times, clinical expertise may not be sufficient to find a way out of a moral impasse, especially in the context of end-of-life and organ transplantation decisions. Advances in medical knowledge and technology, and highly pluralistic and multicultural societies, have led to the emergence of new ethical problems in daily clinical practice along with the need to manage them in a prompt and effective manner. Clinical ethics developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in North American health care contexts with the aim of identifying, analyzing, and attempting to resolve ethical conflicts and dilemmas at the patient’s bedside. At present, only a few regions in Italy have established clinical ethics committees, and Italy may count on a very small number of clinical ethics services fully devoted to ethics case consultation, guidelines development, and the education of health care providers and citizens. Despite this situation, one has to acknowledge both the increasing request for ethics support coming from health care providers who experience an “ethical vacuum” in the Italian health care system and the cultural change that is affecting Italy nowadays. By highlighting clinical examples and sharing experiences, we show and encourage the potential benefits of establishing clinical ethics services in Italian health care contexts.

Objectives and outcomes of clinical ethics services: a Delphi study

ObjectivesTo explore the objectives and outcomes most appropriate for evaluating clinical ethics support services (CESs) in the USA.MethodsA three-round e-Delphi was sent to two professional medical ethics listservs (Medical College...

Do we understand the intervention? What complex intervention research can teach us for the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS)

BackgroundEvaluating clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been hailed as important research task. At the same time, there is considerable debate about how to evaluate CESS appropriately. The criticism, which has been aired, refers to normative as well as empirical aspects of evaluating CESS.Main bodyIn this paper, we argue that a first necessary step for progress is to better understand the intervention(s) in CESS. Tools of complex intervention research methodology may provide relevant means in this respect. In a first step, we introduce principles of “complex intervention research” and show how CESS fulfil the criteria of “complex interventions”. In a second step, we develop a generic “conceptual framework” for “ethics consultation on request” as standard for many forms of ethics consultation in clinical ethics practice. We apply this conceptual framework to the model of “bioethics mediation” to make explicit the specific structural and procedural elements of this form of ethics consultation on request. In a final step we conduct a comparative analysis of two different types of CESS, which have been subject to evaluation research: “proactive ethics consultation” and “moral case deliberation” and discuss implications for evaluating both types of CESS.ConclusionTo make explicit different premises of implemented CESS interventions by means of conceptual frameworks can inform the search for sound empirical evaluation of CESS. In addition, such work provides a starting point for further reflection about what it means to offer “good” CESS.

Integrative Clinical Ethics Support in Gender Affirmative Care: Lessons Learned

Clinical ethics support (CES) for health care professionals and patients is increasingly seen as part of good health care. However, there is a key drawback to the way CES services are currently offered. They are often performed as isolated and one-off services whose ownership and impact are unclear. This paper describes the development of an integrative approach to CES at the Center of Expertise and Care for Gender Dysphoria (CEGD) at Amsterdam University Medical Center. We specifically aimed to integrate CES into daily work processes at the CEGD. In this paper, we describe the CES services offered there in detail and elaborate on the 16 lessons we learned from the process of developing an integrative approach to CES. These learning points can inform and inspire CES professionals, who wish to bring about greater integration of CES services into clinical practice.

Defining and categorizing outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD): concept mapping with experienced MCD participants

BackgroundTo support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations, Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) are increasingly implemented. To assess the impact of CES, it is important to evaluate outcomes. Despite general claims about outcomes from MCD experts and some qualitative research, there exists no conceptual analysis of outcomes yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically define and categorize MCD outcomes. An additional aim was to compare these outcomes with the outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument from 2014, to further validate this Instrument.MethodsThe concept mapping method was used and involves qualitative and quantitative steps including brainstorming, individual structuring, computation of concept maps (by principal component analysis and cluster analysis), group interpretation and utilization. In total, 12 experienced MCD participants from a variety of professional backgrounds participated in two sessions.ResultsThe focus group brainstorm resulted in a list of 85 possible MCD outcomes, of which a point map and concept maps were constructed. After a thorough discussion of each cluster, final consensus was reached on the names and position of 8 clusters of MCD outcomes: 1) Organisation and Policy; 2) Team development; 3) Personal development focused on the Other Person; 4) Personal development as Professional, focused on Skills; 5) Personal development as Professional, focused on Knowledge; 6) Personal development as an Individual; 7) Perception and Connection; and 8) Concrete action.ConclusionsThis study explored and categorized MCD outcomes in a concept mapping focus group. When comparing the results with the Euro-MCD Instrument, our study confirms that outcomes of MCD can be categorized in clusters referring to the organisational level, team development, personal development (both as an individual and a professional) and the concrete case-level. In developing CES evaluation tools, it is important to be explicit if an outcome refers to the individual or the team, to knowledge or skills, to the organisation or the specific case. The findings will be used in the further validation of the Euro-MCD Instrument. The current study further contributes to the field of evaluating CES in general and defining outcomes of MCD in particular.