The Effectiveness of a Hospital Ethics Committee in a Non-Western Country: Lessons from a Ten-Year Experience

IF 1.3 Q3 ETHICS
M. Murat Civaner
{"title":"The Effectiveness of a Hospital Ethics Committee in a Non-Western Country: Lessons from a Ten-Year Experience","authors":"M. Murat Civaner","doi":"10.1007/s41649-024-00289-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Hospital ethics committees (HECs) are relatively new in non-Western countries. This article examines the effectiveness of a HEC established in Bursa/Turkey over ten years, aiming to contribute insights for the wider implementation and enhancement of HECs. The evaluative methodology combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess its effectiveness. Patients are the primary users of the HEC, although applications from physicians, hospital managers, and the Patient Rights Board are also observed. Surgical specialities account for the majority of applications, particularly from obstetrics and gynecology, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. The study identifies the types of applications, with malpractice claims, ethical inquiries, and access-related complaints being the most common. Despite many healthcare professionals encountering ethical dilemmas, the HEC was underutilized for consultations due to factors such as low awareness, perceived autonomy challenges, and skepticism regarding its efficacy. Additionally, the study describes how HEC recommendations contribute to policy development, addressing organizational issues and promoting ethical practices. The decision-making process within the HEC was also scrutinized, emphasizing the necessity of a structured methodology for moral deliberation. Concerns are raised about committee members lacking specific training in ethical analysis, potentially resulting in biases and suboptimal decisions. Contextual factors, including institutional culture and economic considerations, are also recognized for their influence on decision-making. This analysis highlights the multifaceted nature of HECs and the challenges they face in achieving effectiveness. It underscores the need for standardized measures, improved training for committee members, and contextual awareness to enhance the impact and functionality of HECs in healthcare institutions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"16 4","pages":"615 - 634"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-024-00289-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hospital ethics committees (HECs) are relatively new in non-Western countries. This article examines the effectiveness of a HEC established in Bursa/Turkey over ten years, aiming to contribute insights for the wider implementation and enhancement of HECs. The evaluative methodology combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess its effectiveness. Patients are the primary users of the HEC, although applications from physicians, hospital managers, and the Patient Rights Board are also observed. Surgical specialities account for the majority of applications, particularly from obstetrics and gynecology, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. The study identifies the types of applications, with malpractice claims, ethical inquiries, and access-related complaints being the most common. Despite many healthcare professionals encountering ethical dilemmas, the HEC was underutilized for consultations due to factors such as low awareness, perceived autonomy challenges, and skepticism regarding its efficacy. Additionally, the study describes how HEC recommendations contribute to policy development, addressing organizational issues and promoting ethical practices. The decision-making process within the HEC was also scrutinized, emphasizing the necessity of a structured methodology for moral deliberation. Concerns are raised about committee members lacking specific training in ethical analysis, potentially resulting in biases and suboptimal decisions. Contextual factors, including institutional culture and economic considerations, are also recognized for their influence on decision-making. This analysis highlights the multifaceted nature of HECs and the challenges they face in achieving effectiveness. It underscores the need for standardized measures, improved training for committee members, and contextual awareness to enhance the impact and functionality of HECs in healthcare institutions.

非西方国家医院伦理委员会的有效性:十年经验的启示
医院伦理委员会(HEC)在非西方国家相对较新。本文研究了在土耳其布尔萨成立的医院伦理委员会十年来的有效性,旨在为更广泛地实施和加强医院伦理委员会提供见解。评估方法结合了定量和定性方法,以评估其有效性。患者是医保中心的主要用户,但医生、医院管理人员和患者权利委员会也会提出申请。外科专科的申请占大多数,尤其是妇产科、麻醉科和急诊科。研究确定了申请的类型,其中最常见的是渎职索赔、伦理调查和与就医相关的投诉。尽管许多医护专业人员都会遇到伦理困境,但由于对 HEC 的认识不足、认为其存在自主性挑战以及对其功效持怀疑态度等因素,HEC 在咨询中的使用率并不高。此外,本研究还介绍了 HEC 建议如何促进政策制定、解决组织问题和推广伦理实践。还仔细研究了消除对妇女歧视委员会的决策过程,强调了道德审议结构化方法的必要性。有人担心,委员会成员缺乏道德分析方面的专门培训,可能会导致偏见和不理想的决策。包括机构文化和经济因素在内的环境因素对决策的影响也得到了认可。这项分析强调了高等选举委员会的多面性及其在实现有效性方面所面临的挑战。它强调了采取标准化措施、加强对委员会成员的培训以及提高对环境因素的认识的必要性,从而增强医疗保健机构中 HEC 的影响力和功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信