Cargando…

Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review

BACKGROUND: 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 pra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haan, Maaike M., van Gurp, Jelle L. P., Naber, Simone M., Groenewoud, A. Stef
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6219174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30400913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0325-y
_version_ 1783368605241442304
author Haan, Maaike M.
van Gurp, Jelle L. P.
Naber, Simone M.
Groenewoud, A. Stef
author_facet Haan, Maaike M.
van Gurp, Jelle L. P.
Naber, Simone M.
Groenewoud, A. Stef
author_sort Haan, Maaike M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6219174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62191742018-11-16 Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review Haan, Maaike M. van Gurp, Jelle L. P. Naber, Simone M. Groenewoud, A. Stef BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. BioMed Central 2018-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6219174/ /pubmed/30400913 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0325-y Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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
Haan, Maaike M.
van Gurp, Jelle L. P.
Naber, Simone M.
Groenewoud, A. Stef
Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review
title Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review
title_full Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review
title_fullStr Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review
title_full_unstemmed Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review
title_short Impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review
title_sort impact of moral case deliberation in healthcare settings: a literature review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6219174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30400913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0325-y
work_keys_str_mv AT haanmaaikem impactofmoralcasedeliberationinhealthcaresettingsaliteraturereview
AT vangurpjellelp impactofmoralcasedeliberationinhealthcaresettingsaliteraturereview
AT nabersimonem impactofmoralcasedeliberationinhealthcaresettingsaliteraturereview
AT groenewoudastef impactofmoralcasedeliberationinhealthcaresettingsaliteraturereview