University Medical Center Göttingen, Germany.
University Medical Center Göttingen, Germany; University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Nov-Dec;26(7-8):2098-2112. doi: 10.1177/0969733019829857. Epub 2019 Apr 1.
Clinical ethics committees have been broadly implemented in university hospitals, general hospitals and nursing homes. To ensure the quality of ethics consultations, evaluation should be mandatory.
RESEARCH QUESTION/AIM: The aim of this article is to evaluate the perspectives of all people involved and the process of implementation on the wards.
The data were collected in two steps: by means of non-participating observation of four ethics case consultations and by open-guided interviews with 28 participants. Data analysis was performed according to grounded theory.
The study received approval from the local Ethics Commission (registration no.: 32/11/10).
'Communication problems' and 'hierarchical team conflicts' proved to be the main aspects that led to ethics consultation, involving two factors: unresolvable differences arise in the context of team conflicts on the ward and unresolvable differences prevent a solution being found. Hierarchical asymmetries, which are common in the medical field, support this vicious circle. Based on this, minor or major disagreements regarding clinical decisions might be seen as ethical conflicts. The expectation on the clinical ethics committee is to solve this (communication) problem, but the participants experienced that hierarchy is maintained by the clinical ethics committee members.
The asymmetrical structures of the clinical ethics committee reflect the institutional hierarchical nature. They endure, despite the fact that the clinical ethics committee should be able to detect and overcome them. Disagreements among care givers are described as one of the most difficult ethically relevant situations and should be recognised by the clinical ethics committee. On the contrary, discussion of team conflicts and clinical ethical issues should not be combined, since the first is a mandate for team supervision.
To avoid dominance by physicians and an excessively factual character of the presentation, the case or conflict could be presented by both physicians and nurses, a strategy that strengthens the interpersonal and emotional aspects and also integrates both professional perspectives.
临床伦理委员会已广泛应用于大学医院、综合医院和养老院。为了确保伦理咨询的质量,评估应是强制性的。
研究问题/目的:本文旨在评估所有相关人员在病房实施过程中的观点。
数据收集分两步进行:通过对 4 个伦理案例咨询的非参与式观察,以及对 28 名参与者进行开放式引导访谈。数据分析根据扎根理论进行。
本研究获得了当地伦理委员会的批准(注册号:32/11/10)。
“沟通问题”和“团队冲突中的等级差异”被证明是导致伦理咨询的主要方面,涉及两个因素:病房团队冲突背景下出现无法解决的分歧,以及无法找到解决方案的分歧。在医疗领域常见的等级不对称现象支持了这一恶性循环。在此基础上,对临床决策的轻微或重大分歧可能被视为伦理冲突。人们期望临床伦理委员会能够解决这一(沟通)问题,但参与者们发现临床伦理委员会成员维护了等级制度。
临床伦理委员会的不对称结构反映了机构的等级性质。尽管临床伦理委员会应该能够发现并克服这些结构,但它们仍然存在。护理人员之间的分歧被描述为最困难的伦理相关情况之一,应该得到临床伦理委员会的认可。相反,不应将团队冲突和临床伦理问题的讨论混为一谈,因为前者是团队监督的任务。
为了避免医生的主导地位和陈述过于事实化,病例或冲突可以由医生和护士共同提出,这一策略可以加强人际和情感方面,并整合两种专业视角。