阻碍还是帮助:探讨临床伦理支持服务审议中的患者参与。

Q3 Medicine
Katherine Murdoch
{"title":"阻碍还是帮助:探讨临床伦理支持服务审议中的患者参与。","authors":"Katherine Murdoch","doi":"10.1086/733393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractClinical ethics support services (CESS) are advisory bodies that deal with ethical conflict arising in healthcare. Patient involvement with CESS remains a contentious issue, without uniform practice regarding whether, how, and when patients should be involved. The overall objective of the study was to understand key stakeholders' viewpoints about CESS and urgent decision-making. Patient involvement and clinical ethics emerged as a key area of discussion. Three stakeholder groups were recruited: doctors in England, CESS members in England, and CESS members in the United States. Recruitment occurred via dissemination of the study online and via email. This resulted in a sample size of 13 participants. The focus group transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The study found that there was uniform acceptance of the importance of patient representation by all stakeholders. However, the ways in which their involvement was facilitated varied. CESS members in the United States routinely involved the family directly by discussion with the clinical ethicist. However, CESS members and doctors in England viewed patient presence in committee meetings as a barrier to open discussion. Instead, CESS in England would seek ways in which involvement could occur, such as a written statement or advocation by the clinical team. The clinical ethicist model, adopted in the United States, appears to support direct patient involvement in the consultation process, in comparison to the clinical ethics committee model adopted in England. However, these results are limited by the small sample size and small number of viewpoints represented.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 1","pages":"9-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hindering or Helping: Discussing Patient Participation in Clinical Ethics Support Service Deliberation.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine Murdoch\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/733393\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>AbstractClinical ethics support services (CESS) are advisory bodies that deal with ethical conflict arising in healthcare. Patient involvement with CESS remains a contentious issue, without uniform practice regarding whether, how, and when patients should be involved. The overall objective of the study was to understand key stakeholders' viewpoints about CESS and urgent decision-making. Patient involvement and clinical ethics emerged as a key area of discussion. Three stakeholder groups were recruited: doctors in England, CESS members in England, and CESS members in the United States. Recruitment occurred via dissemination of the study online and via email. This resulted in a sample size of 13 participants. The focus group transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The study found that there was uniform acceptance of the importance of patient representation by all stakeholders. However, the ways in which their involvement was facilitated varied. CESS members in the United States routinely involved the family directly by discussion with the clinical ethicist. However, CESS members and doctors in England viewed patient presence in committee meetings as a barrier to open discussion. Instead, CESS in England would seek ways in which involvement could occur, such as a written statement or advocation by the clinical team. The clinical ethicist model, adopted in the United States, appears to support direct patient involvement in the consultation process, in comparison to the clinical ethics committee model adopted in England. However, these results are limited by the small sample size and small number of viewpoints represented.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"9-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/733393\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/733393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要临床伦理支持服务(CESS)是处理医疗保健中出现的伦理冲突的咨询机构。患者参与CESS仍然是一个有争议的问题,没有关于患者是否,如何以及何时参与的统一实践。该研究的总体目标是了解关键利益相关者对CESS和紧急决策的看法。患者参与和临床伦理成为讨论的关键领域。招募了三个利益相关者群体:英国的医生、英国的CESS成员和美国的CESS成员。招募是通过在线和电子邮件的方式进行的。这导致了13名参与者的样本量。使用反身性主题分析对焦点小组记录进行分析。研究发现,所有利益相关者都一致接受患者代表的重要性。然而,促进他们参与的方式各不相同。在美国,CESS成员通常通过与临床伦理学家的讨论直接参与家庭。然而,英国的CESS成员和医生将患者出席委员会会议视为公开讨论的障碍。相反,英国的CESS会寻求可能发生的参与方式,例如书面声明或临床团队的倡导。与英国采用的临床伦理委员会模式相比,美国采用的临床伦理学家模式似乎支持患者直接参与咨询过程。然而,这些结果受到样本量小和所代表观点数量少的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hindering or Helping: Discussing Patient Participation in Clinical Ethics Support Service Deliberation.

AbstractClinical ethics support services (CESS) are advisory bodies that deal with ethical conflict arising in healthcare. Patient involvement with CESS remains a contentious issue, without uniform practice regarding whether, how, and when patients should be involved. The overall objective of the study was to understand key stakeholders' viewpoints about CESS and urgent decision-making. Patient involvement and clinical ethics emerged as a key area of discussion. Three stakeholder groups were recruited: doctors in England, CESS members in England, and CESS members in the United States. Recruitment occurred via dissemination of the study online and via email. This resulted in a sample size of 13 participants. The focus group transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The study found that there was uniform acceptance of the importance of patient representation by all stakeholders. However, the ways in which their involvement was facilitated varied. CESS members in the United States routinely involved the family directly by discussion with the clinical ethicist. However, CESS members and doctors in England viewed patient presence in committee meetings as a barrier to open discussion. Instead, CESS in England would seek ways in which involvement could occur, such as a written statement or advocation by the clinical team. The clinical ethicist model, adopted in the United States, appears to support direct patient involvement in the consultation process, in comparison to the clinical ethics committee model adopted in England. However, these results are limited by the small sample size and small number of viewpoints represented.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
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