Cargando…

Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019

BACKGROUND: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen, Ong, Yun Ting, Yap, Hong Wei, Tay, Kuang Teck, Lim, Elijah Gin, Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen, Lim, Wei Qiang, Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew, Toh, Ying Pin, Chiam, Min, Mason, Stephen, Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7329412/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32611436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00492-4
_version_ 1783552897241317376
author Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen
Ong, Yun Ting
Yap, Hong Wei
Tay, Kuang Teck
Lim, Elijah Gin
Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen
Lim, Wei Qiang
Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew
Toh, Ying Pin
Chiam, Min
Mason, Stephen
Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha
author_facet Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen
Ong, Yun Ting
Yap, Hong Wei
Tay, Kuang Teck
Lim, Elijah Gin
Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen
Lim, Wei Qiang
Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew
Toh, Ying Pin
Chiam, Min
Mason, Stephen
Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha
author_sort Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons. METHODS: Guided by Levac et al’s (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings. RESULTS: Nine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified – the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations. CONCLUSION: This review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy. To advance a contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive, program specific assessment tool to assess CECons, clear structural and competency guidelines must be established in the curation of CECons programs, to evaluate their true efficacy and maintain clinical, legal and ethical standards.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7329412
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73294122020-07-02 Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen Ong, Yun Ting Yap, Hong Wei Tay, Kuang Teck Lim, Elijah Gin Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen Lim, Wei Qiang Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew Toh, Ying Pin Chiam, Min Mason, Stephen Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons. METHODS: Guided by Levac et al’s (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings. RESULTS: Nine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified – the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations. CONCLUSION: This review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy. To advance a contextually appropriate, culturally sensitive, program specific assessment tool to assess CECons, clear structural and competency guidelines must be established in the curation of CECons programs, to evaluate their true efficacy and maintain clinical, legal and ethical standards. BioMed Central 2020-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7329412/ /pubmed/32611436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00492-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen
Ong, Yun Ting
Yap, Hong Wei
Tay, Kuang Teck
Lim, Elijah Gin
Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen
Lim, Wei Qiang
Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew
Toh, Ying Pin
Chiam, Min
Mason, Stephen
Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha
Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019
title Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019
title_full Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019
title_fullStr Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019
title_short Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019
title_sort evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7329412/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32611436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00492-4
work_keys_str_mv AT yoonnicholasyueshuen evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT ongyunting evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT yaphongwei evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT taykuangteck evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT limelijahgin evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT cheongclarissaweishuen evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT limweiqiang evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT chinannelissamienchew evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT tohyingpin evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT chiammin evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT masonstephen evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019
AT krishnalalitkumarradha evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019