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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Magelssen, Morten, Miljeteig, Ingrid, Pedersen, Reidar, Førde, Reidun
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