Haan Maaike M, van Gurp Jelle L P, Naber Simone M, Groenewoud A Stef
Radboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21, P.O. Box 9101 (114), 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Nov 6;19(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0325-y.
An important and supposedly impactful form of clinical ethics support is moral case deliberation (MCD). Empirical evidence, however, is limited with regard to its actual impact. With this literature review, we aim to investigate the empirical evidence of MCD, thereby a) informing the practice, and b) providing a focus for further research on and development of MCD in healthcare settings.
A systematic literature search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science (June 2016). Both the data collection and the qualitative data analysis followed a stepwise approach, including continuous peer review and careful documentation of our decisions. The qualitative analysis was supported by ATLAS.ti.
Based on a qualitative analysis of 25 empirical papers, we identified four clusters of themes: 1) facilitators and barriers in the preparation and context of MCD, i.e., a safe and open atmosphere created by a facilitator, a concrete case, commitment of participants, a focus on the moral dimension, and a supportive organization; 2) changes that are brought about on a personal and inter-professional level, with regard to professional's feelings of relief, relatedness and confidence; understanding of the perspectives of colleagues, one's own perspective and the moral issue at stake; and awareness of the moral dimension of one's work and awareness of the importance of reflection; 3) changes that are brought about in caring for patients and families; and 4) changes that are brought about on an organizational level.
This review shows that MCD brings about changes in practice, mostly for the professional in inter-professional interactions. Most reported changes are considered positive, although challenges, frustrations and absence of change were also reported. Empirical evidence of a concrete impact on the quality of patient care is limited and is mostly based on self-reports. With patient-focused and methodologically sound qualitative research, the practice and the value of MCD in healthcare settings can be better understood, thus making a stronger case for this kind of ethics support.
道德案例审议(MCD)是临床伦理支持的一种重要且据信有影响力的形式。然而,关于其实际影响的实证证据有限。通过本次文献综述,我们旨在调查MCD的实证证据,从而a)为实践提供信息,b)为医疗环境中MCD的进一步研究和发展提供重点。
于2016年6月在电子数据库PubMed、CINAHL和科学网中进行了系统的文献检索。数据收集和定性数据分析均采用逐步推进的方法,包括持续的同行评审以及对我们决策的仔细记录。定性分析由ATLAS.ti软件提供支持。
基于对25篇实证论文的定性分析,我们确定了四类主题:1)MCD准备过程及背景中的促进因素和障碍,即由主持人营造的安全且开放的氛围、具体案例、参与者的投入、对道德层面的关注以及支持性的组织;2)个人和跨专业层面发生的变化,涉及专业人员的解脱感、关联感和自信心;对同事观点、自身观点以及所涉道德问题的理解;对工作道德层面的认识以及反思重要性的认识;3)在照顾患者和家庭方面带来的变化;4)组织层面带来的变化。
本综述表明,MCD在实践中带来了变化,主要是在跨专业互动中的专业人员方面。尽管也报告了挑战、挫折和未发生变化的情况,但大多数报告的变化被认为是积极的。对患者护理质量产生具体影响的实证证据有限,且大多基于自我报告。通过以患者为中心且方法合理的定性研究,可以更好地理解MCD在医疗环境中的实践和价值,从而为这种伦理支持提供更有力的依据。