Faculty of Health Sciences McMaster University Medical Center, 1F9–1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(11):3-15. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.719263.
Hospital ethics committees (HECs) and ethicists generally describe themselves as engaged in four domains of practice: case consultation, research, education, and policy work. Despite the increasing attention to quality indicators, practice standards, and evaluation methods for the other domains, comparatively little is known or published about the policy work of HECs or ethicists. This article attempts to open the "black box" of this health care ethics practice by providing two detailed case examples of ethics policy reviews. We also describe the development and application of an evaluation strategy to assess the quality of ethics policy review work, and to enable continuous improvement of ethics policy review processes. Given the potential for policy work to impact entire patient populations and organizational systems, it is imperative that HECs and ethicists develop clearer roles, responsibilities, procedural standards, and evaluation methods to ensure the delivery of consistent, relevant, and high-quality ethics policy reviews.
医院伦理委员会(HEC)和伦理学家通常将自己描述为从事四个实践领域的工作:案例咨询、研究、教育和政策工作。尽管越来越关注质量指标、实践标准和其他领域的评估方法,但关于 HEC 或伦理学家的政策工作,人们知之甚少或发表的内容很少。本文试图通过提供两个详细的伦理政策审查案例,来揭开医疗保健伦理实践的“黑箱”。我们还描述了评估策略的制定和应用,以评估伦理政策审查工作的质量,并使伦理政策审查过程得以持续改进。鉴于政策工作有可能影响整个患者群体和组织系统,HEC 和伦理学家必须制定更明确的角色、责任、程序标准和评估方法,以确保提供一致、相关和高质量的伦理政策审查。