• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

英国临床伦理委员会的咨询活动:一项实证研究与警醒

Consultation activities of clinical ethics committees in the United Kingdom: an empirical study and wake-up call.

机构信息

St George's, University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK.

出版信息

Postgrad Med J. 2009 Sep;85(1007):451-4. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2008.075879.

DOI:10.1136/pgmj.2008.075879
PMID:19734510
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To identify the consultation activities of clinical ethics committees (CECs) in the UK and the views of CEC chairpersons regarding such activities.

METHODS

An anonymous, password-protected online questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 70 CEC chairpersons. The questionnaire contained 14 items.

RESULTS

Of the 70 CECs contacted, 30 responded (a response rate of 43%). There has been an almost fourfold increase in the number of CECs in the past 7 years. Over half of the CECs that responded had considered three or fewer active cases and three or fewer retrospective cases in the preceding year. Eighty percent of chairpersons felt that the number of active cases considered by their committee was too low. Seventy percent of CECs had rapid response teams. Aside from low consultation caseloads, chairpersons identified a number of concerns, including education and training of members, composition of CECs, low profile and lack of funding and support. Although most respondents believed there is a need for clinical ethics support in the NHS, many noted the limited use of the services, even after efforts to increase the visibility of their CEC.

CONCLUSION

Despite a sharp increase in the absolute numbers of CECs across the UK, the number of cases considered by the majority of CECs is low. The findings presented here suggest we must reflect on the reasons for such low caseloads and pause to consider whether the committee model is most appropriate for the UK context.

摘要

目的

识别英国临床伦理委员会(CEC)的咨询活动,以及 CEC 主席对这些活动的看法。

方法

通过电子邮件向 70 名 CEC 主席发送了一份匿名、密码保护的在线问卷。问卷包含 14 个项目。

结果

在联系的 70 个 CEC 中,有 30 个做出了回应(回应率为 43%)。在过去的 7 年中,CEC 的数量几乎增加了四倍。超过一半的 CEC 在过去一年中考虑了三个或更少的活跃案例和三个或更少的回顾性案例。80%的主席认为他们委员会考虑的活跃案例数量太低。70%的 CEC 有快速反应团队。除了咨询案例数量低之外,主席们还指出了一些问题,包括成员的教育和培训、CEC 的组成、知名度低以及缺乏资金和支持。尽管大多数受访者认为 NHS 需要临床伦理支持,但许多人指出,即使在努力提高 CEC 的知名度之后,对该服务的使用也很有限。

结论

尽管英国 CEC 的绝对数量急剧增加,但大多数 CEC 考虑的案例数量较少。这里提出的调查结果表明,我们必须反思这种低案例量的原因,并考虑委员会模式是否最适合英国的情况。

相似文献

1
Consultation activities of clinical ethics committees in the United Kingdom: an empirical study and wake-up call.英国临床伦理委员会的咨询活动:一项实证研究与警醒
Postgrad Med J. 2009 Sep;85(1007):451-4. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2008.075879.
2
Clinical ethics support services in the UK: an investigation of the current provision of ethics support to health professionals in the UK.英国的临床伦理支持服务:对英国目前向医疗专业人员提供伦理支持情况的调查。
J Med Ethics. 2001 Apr;27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i2-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.suppl_1.i2.
3
Importance of systematic deliberation and stakeholder presence: a national study of clinical ethics committees.重要的是系统审议和利益攸关方的参与:一项全国性的临床伦理委员会研究。
J Med Ethics. 2020 Feb;46(2):66-70. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105190. Epub 2019 Sep 5.
4
Ethics consultation in United States hospitals: a national survey.美国医院的伦理咨询:一项全国性调查。
Am J Bioeth. 2007 Feb;7(2):13-25. doi: 10.1080/15265160601109085.
5
How do national guidelines frame clinical ethics practice? A comparative analysis of guidelines from the US, the UK, Canada and France.国家指南如何构建临床伦理实践?来自美国、英国、加拿大和法国的指南比较分析。
Soc Sci Med. 2013 May;85:74-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.038. Epub 2013 Mar 5.
6
Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review.评估临床伦理委员会的有效性:系统评价。
Med Health Care Philos. 2021 Mar;24(1):135-151. doi: 10.1007/s11019-020-09986-9. Epub 2020 Nov 21.
7
A critical analysis of Australian clinical ethics committees and the functions they serve.对澳大利亚临床伦理委员会及其所履行职能的批判性分析。
Bioethics. 2001 Oct;15(5-6):443-60. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00253.
8
Clinical Ethics Committee in an Oncological Research Hospital: two-years Report.肿瘤研究所临床伦理委员会:两年报告
Nurs Ethics. 2023 Nov-Dec;30(7-8):1217-1231. doi: 10.1177/09697330231174529. Epub 2023 Jun 16.
9
Clinical Ethics Committees in Africa: lost in the shadow of RECs/IRBs?非洲的临床伦理委员会:在 RECs/IRBs 的阴影下迷失?
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Nov 18;21(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00559-2.
10
Determining the function of a hospital clinical ethics committee: making ethics work.确定医院临床伦理委员会的职能:让伦理发挥作用。
J Qual Clin Pract. 1998 Jun;18(2):117-24.

引用本文的文献

1
Jonsen's Four Topics Approach as a Framework for Clinical Ethics Consultation.以琼森的四主题法作为临床伦理咨询的框架。
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2018 Mar 23;10(1):37-51. doi: 10.1007/s41649-018-0047-y. eCollection 2018 Mar.
2
Theory and practice of integrative clinical ethics support: a joint experience within gender affirmative care.综合临床伦理支持的理论与实践:性别肯定性医疗中的联合经验
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Aug 26;21(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00520-3.
3
Making the (Business) Case for Clinical Ethics Support in the UK.为英国的临床伦理支持提出(商业)案例。
HEC Forum. 2021 Dec;33(4):371-391. doi: 10.1007/s10730-020-09416-6.
4
Ethical case interventions for adult patients.针对成年患者的伦理案例干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 22;7(7):CD012636. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012636.pub2.
5
Do we understand the intervention? What complex intervention research can teach us for the evaluation of clinical ethics support services (CESS).我们是否理解干预措施?复杂干预研究可以为我们评估临床伦理支持服务(CESS)提供哪些启示?
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jul 15;20(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0381-y.
6
[Decision conflicts with relatives in the intensive care unit].[重症监护病房中与亲属的决策冲突]
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2016 Oct;111(7):638-643. doi: 10.1007/s00063-015-0109-9. Epub 2015 Oct 29.
7
Bioethics consultation practices and procedures: a survey of a large Canadian community of practice.生物伦理学咨询实践与程序:对加拿大一个大型实践社区的调查
HEC Forum. 2014 Jun;26(2):135-46. doi: 10.1007/s10730-013-9230-4.
8
Assessing physicians' roles on health care ethics committees.
HEC Forum. 2010 Dec;22(4):275-86. doi: 10.1007/s10730-010-9142-5.