{"title":"Macro-Level Factors Influencing the Adoption and Early Implementation of Clinical Ethics Support Services: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Gilles Bernard, Michael Fischer","doi":"10.1007/s10730-025-09555-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical ethics are becoming increasingly important in the twenty-first century. Value-laden cases and moral dilemmas in healthcare have led to the creation of clinical ethics support structures. The last decades have shown their implementation in hospitals around the globe. Recent literature investigates their value, function, and integration. Many conclude that they do valuable work yet remain inadequately integrated, lack institutionalization, and struggle with resource shortages. To gain an understanding of this development and pave the way for future implementation and research, a scoping review was chosen to determine which macro-level factors currently influence the heterogeneous approaches. This review used the scientific research databases Medline and CINAHL in April 2025. It included studies, opinion papers, and book chapters in English and German offering explanations, analysis, discussion, and examples of macro-level clinical ethics support structures' adoption and implementation influences. An inductive qualitative content analysis was conducted to extract the desired information. The resulting categories were formatted into an overview frame. The literature search yielded 400 publications, full-text analysis and snowball search resulted in 47 eligible for analysis. Eight main factors with respective subcategories were identified. These vary in their degree of binding authority, ranging from clearly defined regulations, such as national laws, to more ambiguous influences, such as public opinion and advocacy. Further insights reveal that the effectiveness of these factors cannot yet be determined, and their influence may vary based on the values and political context of the country where a support structure is implemented.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-025-09555-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Clinical ethics are becoming increasingly important in the twenty-first century. Value-laden cases and moral dilemmas in healthcare have led to the creation of clinical ethics support structures. The last decades have shown their implementation in hospitals around the globe. Recent literature investigates their value, function, and integration. Many conclude that they do valuable work yet remain inadequately integrated, lack institutionalization, and struggle with resource shortages. To gain an understanding of this development and pave the way for future implementation and research, a scoping review was chosen to determine which macro-level factors currently influence the heterogeneous approaches. This review used the scientific research databases Medline and CINAHL in April 2025. It included studies, opinion papers, and book chapters in English and German offering explanations, analysis, discussion, and examples of macro-level clinical ethics support structures' adoption and implementation influences. An inductive qualitative content analysis was conducted to extract the desired information. The resulting categories were formatted into an overview frame. The literature search yielded 400 publications, full-text analysis and snowball search resulted in 47 eligible for analysis. Eight main factors with respective subcategories were identified. These vary in their degree of binding authority, ranging from clearly defined regulations, such as national laws, to more ambiguous influences, such as public opinion and advocacy. Further insights reveal that the effectiveness of these factors cannot yet be determined, and their influence may vary based on the values and political context of the country where a support structure is implemented.
期刊介绍:
HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors