Ethics Support Services Research Articles

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.

Moral distress and positive experiences of ICU staff during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic causes moral challenges and moral distress for healthcare professionals and, due to an increased work load, reduces time and opportunities for clinical ethics support services. Nevertheless, healthcare professionals could also identify essential elements to maintain or change in the future, as moral distress and moral challenges can indicate opportunities to strengthen moral resilience of healthcare professionals and organisations.This study describes 1) the experienced moral distress, challenges and ethical climate concerning end-of-life care of Intensive Care Unit staff during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and 2) their positive experiences and lessons learned, which function as directions for future forms of ethics support.MethodsA cross-sectional survey combining quantitative and qualitative elements was sent to all healthcare professionals who worked at the Intensive Care Unit of the Amsterdam UMC - Location AMC during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey consisted of 36 items about moral distress (concerning quality of care and emotional stress), team cooperation, ethical climate and (ways of dealing with) end-of-life decisions, and two open questions about positive experiences and suggestions for work improvement.ResultsAll 178 respondents (response rate: 25–32%) showed signs of moral distress, and experienced moral dilemmas in end-of-life decisions, whereas they experienced a relatively positive ethical climate. Nurses scored significantly higher than physicians on most items. Positive experiences were mostly related to ‘team cooperation’, ‘team solidarity’ and ‘work ethic’. Lessons learned were mostly related to ‘quality of care’ and ‘professional qualities’.ConclusionsDespite the crisis, positive experiences related to ethical climate, team members and overall work ethic were reported by Intensive Care Unit staff and quality and organisation of care lessons were learned. Ethics support services can be tailored to reflect on morally challenging situations, restore moral resilience, create space for self-care and strengthen team spirit. This can improve healthcare professionals’ dealing of inherent moral challenges and moral distress in order to strengthen both individual and organisational moral resilience.Trial registrationThe trial was registered on The Netherlands Trial Register, number NL9177.

Contribution of moral case deliberations to the Moral Craftmanship of prison staff: A quantitative analysis

This study explores the impact of participation in a series of moral case deliberations (MCD) on the moral craftsmanship (MCS) of Dutch prison staff. Between 2017–2020, ten MCDs per team were implemented in three prisons (i.e., intervention group). In three other prisons (i.e., control group) no MCDs were implemented. We compared the intervention and control group using a self-developed questionnaire, administered before (pre-measurement) and after the series of MCDs (post-measurement).ResultsAfter the MCDs, participants scored significantly higher on 7 of the 70 items related to MCS. On some items there were significant impact differences between the various professional disciplines.DiscussionPossible explanations for a relatively low impact are discussed. A shorter and validated questionnaire is needed in order to further study the MCS of professionals and the impact of Ethics Support Services (ESS).ConclusionsThere was a positive development on some elements of MCS after participation in a series of MCDs.

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.

Convergence and Divergence in Canadian Ethics Support Services

This article discusses clinical ethics consultation (CEC), and thereby ethics support services in the Canadian context. Commonalities and differences between the three models of ethics support and CEC shared in this article are identified, set within the broader context of the Canadian healthcare system, accreditation, and professionalization of practicing healthcare ethicists.

Moral Dilemmas of Dutch Prison Staff; a Thematic Overview from All Professional Disciplines

ABSTRACT Prison staff face situations with conflicting interests and values. To strengthen craftsmanship Dutch prison staff reflected upon personal moral dilemmas during Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) sessions. This research aims to gain systematic insight into themes and moral dilemmas Dutch prison staff encounter. Evaluation-forms of 171 MCD-sessions were collected (N = 1065 MCD-participants, N = 171 MCD-facilitators) from 22 teams of different professional disciplines at 3 locations. Our qualitative thematic content analysis included 154 moral dilemmas. We noted the organizational level and professional disciplines the moral dilemmas related to, and how dilemmas were formulated. All professional disciplines within prison work show to encounter a wide range of moral dilemmas, which emerge in and between all organizational levels. “Security” and “cooperation” were frequently mentioned themes, while dilemmas relating to the rehabilitation of prisoners were underrepresented. Some formulations of moral dilemmas were based on frustrations toward colleagues or the organization, expressed “powerlessness” to change practice, or contained normative arguments instead of an open formulation. These insights call for structural facilitation of methods for prison staff to deal with moral dilemmas. Ethics Support Services (ESS), such as MCD-sessions, can be used to further strengthen the moral craftsmanship of prison staff.

Ethical issues in oncology practice: a qualitative study of stakeholders’ experiences and expectations

BackgroundClinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) have been established to support healthcare professionals in addressing ethically sensitive issues in clinical practice and, in many countries, they are under development. In the context of growing CESS, exploring how healthcare professionals experience and address clinical ethics issues in their daily practice represents a fundamental step to understand their potential needs. This is even more relevant in the context of extremely sensitive diseases, such as cancer. On this basis, we carried out a qualitative study conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of a major comprehensive cancer centre in Italy, with the twofold aim of investigating what ethical issues arise in the context of clinical oncology and how they are addressed, as well as stakeholders’ expectations about a potential CESS to be implemented within the Institution.MethodsThe study was conducted within the theoretical framework of Grounded Theory. Participants were healthcare professionals and other key stakeholders working within the cancer centre. The semi-structured interview aimed at exploring common ethical aspects of oncology, investigating stakeholders’ professional experience in dealing with clinical ethics issues, their expectations and requests regarding ethics support services. Transcripts of the interviews were coded and analysed according to the principles of Grounded Theory.ResultsTwenty-one stakeholders were interviewed. Our analysis showed a wide consensus on the identification of ethically relevant issues, above all those concerning communication, end-of-life, and resource allocation. The absence of institutional tools or strategies to address and manage ethical issues at the patient bedside emerged, and this is reflected in the widespread request for their development in the future. The ideal support service should be fast and flexible in order to adapt to different needs and clinical cases.ConclusionsThe interviewees showed a limited degree of ‘ethical awareness’: despite having reported many issues in clinical practice, they could hardly identify and describe the ethical aspects, while complaining about a lack of ethical resources in their management. To build a truly effective support service, it therefore seems appropriate to take such context into consideration and address the emerged needs. Ethical sensitivity seems to be key and it becomes even more relevant in critical clinical areas, such as the therapeutic pathways of terminally ill patients.

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. "

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.

Field-Testing the Euro-MCD Instrument: Important Outcomes According to Participants Before and After Moral Case Deliberation

Ethics support services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) intend to support healthcare professionals in ethically difficult situations. To assess outcomes of MCD, the Euro-MCD Instrument has been developed. Field studies to test this instrument are needed and have been conducted, examining important outcomes before MCD participation and experienced outcomes. The current study aimed to (1) describe how participants’ perceive the importance of MCD outcomes after MCD; (2) compare these perceptions with those before MCD participation; and (3) test the factor structure of these outcomes. Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch healthcare professionals rated the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument after four and eight MCDs. Ratings were compared with those before MCD participation using paired and independent samples t-tests. The factor structure was tested using exploratory factor analyses. After 4 and 8 MCDs, 443 respectively 247 respondents completed the instrument. More than 69% rated all MCD outcomes as ‘quite’ or ‘very’ important, especially outcomes from Enhanced Collaboration, Improved Moral Reflexivity and Improved Moral Attitude. Significant differences for 16 outcomes regarding ratings before and after MCD participation were not considered meaningful. Factor analyses suggested three categories, which seemingly resemble the domains Improved Moral Reflexivity, Enhanced Collaboration and a combination of Improved Moral Attitude and Enhanced Emotional Support. After participation in MCDs, respondents confirmed the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument. The question on perceived importance and the categorization of outcomes need reconsideration. The revised instrument will be presented elsewhere, based on all field studies and theoretical reflections.

Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process

BackgroundClinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process.MethodsThe revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes.ResultsThe Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance.ConclusionsThe Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.

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.

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.

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.

Ethics rounds: affecting ethics quality at all organisational levels

Clinical ethics support (CES) services are experiencing a phase of flourishing and of growing recognition. At the same time, however, the expectations regarding the acceptance and the integration of traditional...

Methodological Reflections on the Contribution of Qualitative Research to the Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services.

This article describes a process of developing, implementing and evaluating a clinical ethics support service intervention with the goal of building up a context-sensitive structure of minimal clinical-ethics in an oncology department without prior clinical ethics structure. Scholars from different disciplines have called for an improvement in the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS) for different reasons over several decades. However, while a lot has been said about the concepts and methodological challenges of evaluating CESS up to the present time, relatively few empirical studies have been carried out. The aim of this article is twofold. On the one hand, it describes a process of development, modifying and evaluating a CESS intervention as part of the ETHICO research project, using the approach of qualitative-formative evaluation. On the other hand, it provides a methodological analysis which specifies the contribution of qualitative empirical methods to the (formative) evaluation of CESS. We conclude with a consideration of the strengths and limitations of qualitative evaluation research with regards to the evaluation and development of context sensitive CESS. We further discuss our own approach in contrast to rather traditional consult or committee models.

Unmet Needs for Clinical Ethics Support Services in Nurse: Based on focus group interviews.

As nurses' ethical competence in their own fields is essential, clinical ethics support services help nurses improve ethical competence. The purpose of this study was to identify the unmet needs of ethical support for nurses in clinical settings and explore the differences by nursing units. Focus group interview design was applied. Participants and research context: Data were collected via four rounds of focus group interviews with 37 nurses at intensive care units, medical-surgical units, emergency departments and oncology units. Major questions were as follows: 'What is nurses' experience of ethical difficulties while working as a clinical nurse?' and 'What kinds of clinical ethics support services do nurses require in different clinical settings?' Inductive content analysis was performed to analyse the data. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review of board at the College of Nursing. Five categories (with 14 subcategories) were identified: difficulty providing evidence-based care, lack of support in maintaining patients' and family members' dignity, insufficient education regarding clinical ethics, loss of professional self-esteem and expectations concerning organizational support. Nurses' desire for ethical support varied according to department. Nurses face both practical and existential ethical issues that require rapid solution each day. There is a need for ethical counselling to prevent compassion fatigue and identify means via which nurses reflect on their daily lives in their own fields. In-house training should be provided for each unit, to improve ethical competence and facilitate the development of pragmatic, sensible solutions.

Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services: Theory, methodology & results

Evaluation of Clinical Ethics Support Services: Theory, methodology & results