• 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

证据-能力-话语:多中心临床伦理支持项目 METAP 的理论框架。

Evidence - competence - discourse: the theoretical framework of the multi-centre clinical ethics support project METAP.

机构信息

Department of Medical and Health Ethics, Medical Faculty/University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.

出版信息

Bioethics. 2011 Sep;25(7):403-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01915.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01915.x
PMID:21790694
Abstract

In this paper we assume that 'theory' is important for Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS). We will argue that the underlying implicit theory should be reflected. Moreover, we suggest that the theoretical components on which any clinical ethics support (CES) relies should be explicitly articulated in order to enhance the quality of CES. A theoretical framework appropriate for CES will be necessarily complex and should include ethical (both descriptive and normative), metaethical and organizational components. The various forms of CES that exist in North-America and in Europe show their underlying theory more or less explicitly, with most of them referring to some kind of theoretical components including 'how-to' questions (methodology), organizational issues (implementation), problem analysis (phenomenology or typology of problems), and related ethical issues such as end-of-life decisions (major ethical topics). In order to illustrate and explain the theoretical framework that we are suggesting for our own CES project METAP, we will outline this project which has been established in a multi-centre context in several healthcare institutions. We conceptualize three 'pillars' as the major components of our theoretical framework: (1) evidence, (2) competence, and (3) discourse. As a whole, the framework is aimed at developing a foundation of our CES project METAP. We conclude that this specific integration of theoretical components is a promising model for the fruitful further development of CES.

摘要

在本文中,我们假设“理论”对临床伦理支持服务(CESS)很重要。我们将论证应该反映潜在的隐含理论。此外,我们建议应明确阐述任何临床伦理支持(CES)所依赖的理论组成部分,以提高 CES 的质量。适合 CES 的理论框架将是必要的复杂的,并且应该包括伦理(描述性和规范性)、元伦理和组织组成部分。在北美和欧洲存在的各种形式的 CES 或多或少地明确地显示了其潜在理论,其中大多数都涉及某种理论组成部分,包括“如何做”的问题(方法学)、组织问题(实施)、问题分析(问题的现象学或类型学)以及与临终决策等相关的伦理问题(主要伦理议题)。为了说明和解释我们建议用于自己的 CES 项目 METAP 的理论框架,我们将概述该项目,该项目已在多个医疗保健机构的多中心环境中建立。我们将三个“支柱”概念化为我们理论框架的主要组成部分:(1)证据,(2)能力,和(3)话语。作为一个整体,该框架旨在为我们的 CES 项目 METAP 提供基础。我们的结论是,这种理论组成部分的具体整合是 CES 进一步富有成效发展的有希望的模式。

相似文献

1
Evidence - competence - discourse: the theoretical framework of the multi-centre clinical ethics support project METAP.证据-能力-话语:多中心临床伦理支持项目 METAP 的理论框架。
Bioethics. 2011 Sep;25(7):403-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01915.x.
2
Mapping out structural features in clinical care calling for ethical sensitivity: a theoretical approach to promote ethical competence in healthcare personnel and clinical ethical support services (CESS).勾画临床护理中需要伦理敏感性的结构特征:促进医疗保健人员和临床伦理支持服务(CESS)伦理能力的理论方法。
Bioethics. 2011 Sep;25(7):394-402. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01909.x.
3
Theory and practice in interprofessional ethics: a framework for understanding ethical issues in health care teams.跨专业伦理中的理论与实践:理解医疗团队伦理问题的框架
J Interprof Care. 2007 Dec;21(6):591-603. doi: 10.1080/13561820701653227.
4
Theory and practice of clinical ethics support services: narrative and hermeneutical perspectives.临床伦理支持服务的理论与实践:叙述与诠释学视角。
Bioethics. 2011 Sep;25(7):354-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01911.x.
5
[The analysis of physicians' work: announcing the end of attempts at in vitro fertilization].[医生工作分析:宣告体外受精尝试的终结]
Encephale. 2003 Jul-Aug;29(4 Pt 1):293-305.
6
[Clinical everyday ethics-support in handling moral distress? : Evaluation of an ethical decision-making model for interprofessional clinical teams].[临床日常伦理——应对道德困扰的支持?:跨专业临床团队伦理决策模型的评估]
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2014 Jun;109(5):354-63. doi: 10.1007/s00063-013-0327-y. Epub 2014 Mar 22.
7
The NCI All Ireland Cancer Conference.美国国家癌症研究所全爱尔兰癌症会议。
Oncologist. 1999;4(4):275-277.
8
Ethical deliberation: a foundation for evidence-based practice.伦理审议:循证实践的基础。
Semin Speech Lang. 2011 Nov;32(4):298-308. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1292755. Epub 2011 Dec 5.
9
An ethics framework for assisting clinician-managers in resource allocation decision making.协助临床管理人员进行资源分配决策的伦理框架。
Hosp Health Serv Adm. 1997 Spring;42(1):33-48.
10
Progress in ethical decision making in the care of the dying.临终关怀中伦理决策的进展。
Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2010 Mar-Apr;29(2):73-80. doi: 10.1097/DCC.0b013e3181c9301a.

引用本文的文献

1
Nurturing ethical insight: exploring nursing students' journey to ethical competence.培养道德洞察力:探索护理专业学生的道德能力发展历程。
BMC Nurs. 2024 Aug 15;23(1):568. doi: 10.1186/s12912-024-02243-x.
2
Weekly Internal Ethical Case Discussions in an ICU-Results Based on 9 Years of Experience With a Highly Structured Approach.重症监护病房的每周内部伦理病例讨论——基于9年高度结构化方法经验的结果
Crit Care Explor. 2021 Mar 15;3(3):e0352. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000352. eCollection 2021 Mar.
3
Implementing ethics reflection groups in hospitals: an action research study evaluating barriers and promotors.
在医院实施伦理反思小组:一项评估障碍和促进因素的行动研究
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jul 16;20(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0387-5.
4
Developing an ethics support tool for dealing with dilemmas around client autonomy based on moral case deliberations.基于道德案例审议,开发一种伦理支持工具,以应对围绕客户自主权的困境。
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Dec 22;19(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0335-9.
5
How to introduce medical ethics at the bedside - Factors influencing the implementation of an ethical decision-making model.如何在床边引入医学伦理学——影响伦理决策模型实施的因素
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Feb 23;18(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0174-0.
6
Ethical challenges in connection with the use of coercion: a focus group study of health care personnel in mental health care.与使用强制手段相关的伦理挑战:对精神卫生保健领域医护人员的焦点小组研究
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Dec 4;15:82. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-82.
7
Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach.在临床实践指南中系统且透明地纳入伦理问题及建议:一种六步法。
Implement Sci. 2014 Dec 4;9:184. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0184-y.
8
[Ethical case discussions in the intensive care unit : from testing to routine].[重症监护病房中的伦理病例讨论:从试验到常规]
Anaesthesist. 2014 Jun;63(6):477-87. doi: 10.1007/s00101-014-2331-x. Epub 2014 May 14.
9
Outcomes of moral case deliberation--the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD).道德案例审议的结果——一种临床伦理支持评估工具(欧洲道德案例审议)的开发
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Apr 8;15:30. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-30.
10
[Clinical everyday ethics-support in handling moral distress? : Evaluation of an ethical decision-making model for interprofessional clinical teams].[临床日常伦理——应对道德困扰的支持?:跨专业临床团队伦理决策模型的评估]
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2014 Jun;109(5):354-63. doi: 10.1007/s00063-013-0327-y. Epub 2014 Mar 22.