Cargando…
Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting
BACKGROUND: Fair prioritization of healthcare resources has been on the agenda for decades, but resource allocation dilemmas in clinical practice remain challenging. Can clinical ethics committees (CECs) be of help? The aim of the study was to explore whether and how CECs handle priority setting dil...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710089/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29191186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0226-5 |
_version_ | 1783282914285322240 |
---|---|
author | Magelssen, Morten Miljeteig, Ingrid Pedersen, Reidar Førde, Reidun |
author_facet | Magelssen, Morten Miljeteig, Ingrid Pedersen, Reidar Førde, Reidun |
author_sort | Magelssen, Morten |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Fair prioritization of healthcare resources has been on the agenda for decades, but resource allocation dilemmas in clinical practice remain challenging. Can clinical ethics committees (CECs) be of help? The aim of the study was to explore whether and how CECs handle priority setting dilemmas and contribute to raising awareness of fairness concerns. METHOD: Descriptions of activities involving priority setting in annual reports from Norwegian CECs (2003-2015) were studied and categorized through qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-nine reports from 38 CECs were studied. We found 78 activities where resource use or priority setting were explicitly highlighted as main topics. Of these, 29 were seminars or other educational activities, 21 were deliberations on individual patient cases, whereas 28 were discussions of principled or general cases. Individual patient cases concerned various distributional dilemmas where values were at stake. Six main topics and seven roles for the CEC were identified. CECs handle issues concerning the introduction of new costly drugs, extraordinarily costly established treatment, the application of priority setting criteria, resource use for vulnerable groups, resource constraints compromising practice, and futility of care. The CEC can act as an analyst, advisor, moderator, disseminator, facilitator, watch dog, and guardian of values and laws. DISCUSSION: In order to fulfil their responsibilities in handling priority setting cases, CECs need knowledge of both the ethics and the institutionalized systems of priority setting. There is potential for developing this aspect of the CECs’ work further. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian CECs are involved in priority setting decisions where they can play multiple constructive roles. In particular, they advise and raise awareness of ethical aspects in resource allocations; bridge clinical practice with higher-level decisions; and promote fair resource allocation and stakeholder rights and interests. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5710089 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57100892017-12-06 Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting Magelssen, Morten Miljeteig, Ingrid Pedersen, Reidar Førde, Reidun BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: Fair prioritization of healthcare resources has been on the agenda for decades, but resource allocation dilemmas in clinical practice remain challenging. Can clinical ethics committees (CECs) be of help? The aim of the study was to explore whether and how CECs handle priority setting dilemmas and contribute to raising awareness of fairness concerns. METHOD: Descriptions of activities involving priority setting in annual reports from Norwegian CECs (2003-2015) were studied and categorized through qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-nine reports from 38 CECs were studied. We found 78 activities where resource use or priority setting were explicitly highlighted as main topics. Of these, 29 were seminars or other educational activities, 21 were deliberations on individual patient cases, whereas 28 were discussions of principled or general cases. Individual patient cases concerned various distributional dilemmas where values were at stake. Six main topics and seven roles for the CEC were identified. CECs handle issues concerning the introduction of new costly drugs, extraordinarily costly established treatment, the application of priority setting criteria, resource use for vulnerable groups, resource constraints compromising practice, and futility of care. The CEC can act as an analyst, advisor, moderator, disseminator, facilitator, watch dog, and guardian of values and laws. DISCUSSION: In order to fulfil their responsibilities in handling priority setting cases, CECs need knowledge of both the ethics and the institutionalized systems of priority setting. There is potential for developing this aspect of the CECs’ work further. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian CECs are involved in priority setting decisions where they can play multiple constructive roles. In particular, they advise and raise awareness of ethical aspects in resource allocations; bridge clinical practice with higher-level decisions; and promote fair resource allocation and stakeholder rights and interests. BioMed Central 2017-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5710089/ /pubmed/29191186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0226-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Magelssen, Morten Miljeteig, Ingrid Pedersen, Reidar Førde, Reidun Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting |
title | Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting |
title_full | Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting |
title_fullStr | Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting |
title_full_unstemmed | Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting |
title_short | Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting |
title_sort | roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710089/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29191186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0226-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT magelssenmorten rolesandresponsibilitiesofclinicalethicscommitteesinprioritysetting AT miljeteigingrid rolesandresponsibilitiesofclinicalethicscommitteesinprioritysetting AT pedersenreidar rolesandresponsibilitiesofclinicalethicscommitteesinprioritysetting AT førdereidun rolesandresponsibilitiesofclinicalethicscommitteesinprioritysetting |