临床伦理学家应该被告知病例解决方案吗?

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Marta Fadda
{"title":"临床伦理学家应该被告知病例解决方案吗?","authors":"Marta Fadda","doi":"10.1007/s10730-025-09549-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The question of whether clinical ethicists should be informed of case resolutions remains unresolved. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) recommends retrospective case reviews to assess whether recommendations were followed, it frames this practice solely as a quality improvement measure. While quality enhancement is a compelling rationale for ensuring that clinical ethicists are informed of the resolutions of consultations, it is not the sole justification for such transparency. Access to case resolutions strengthens ethics education, enhances accountability and transparency, facilitates contributions to the field and advocacy, and mitigates the emotional uncertainty that can arise when ethicists lack closure on complex cases. Although concerns about confidentiality and administrative constraints must be considered, they should not hinder efforts to foster a more transparent consultation process.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should Clinical Ethicists Be Informed About Case Resolutions?\",\"authors\":\"Marta Fadda\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10730-025-09549-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The question of whether clinical ethicists should be informed of case resolutions remains unresolved. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) recommends retrospective case reviews to assess whether recommendations were followed, it frames this practice solely as a quality improvement measure. While quality enhancement is a compelling rationale for ensuring that clinical ethicists are informed of the resolutions of consultations, it is not the sole justification for such transparency. Access to case resolutions strengthens ethics education, enhances accountability and transparency, facilitates contributions to the field and advocacy, and mitigates the emotional uncertainty that can arise when ethicists lack closure on complex cases. Although concerns about confidentiality and administrative constraints must be considered, they should not hinder efforts to foster a more transparent consultation process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hec Forum\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"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/s10730-025-09549-6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-025-09549-6","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

摘要

临床伦理学家是否应该被告知病例解决方案的问题仍然没有解决。虽然美国生命伦理与人文学会(ASBH)建议进行回顾性病例审查,以评估建议是否得到遵循,但它将这种做法仅仅作为一种质量改进措施。虽然提高质量是确保临床伦理学家了解会诊决议的一个令人信服的理由,但它并不是这种透明度的唯一理由。获得案件解决方案可加强伦理教育,增强问责制和透明度,促进对该领域的贡献和宣传,并减轻由于伦理学家对复杂案件缺乏结论而可能产生的情绪不确定性。虽然必须考虑到对保密和行政限制的关切,但它们不应妨碍促进更透明的协商进程的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should Clinical Ethicists Be Informed About Case Resolutions?

The question of whether clinical ethicists should be informed of case resolutions remains unresolved. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) recommends retrospective case reviews to assess whether recommendations were followed, it frames this practice solely as a quality improvement measure. While quality enhancement is a compelling rationale for ensuring that clinical ethicists are informed of the resolutions of consultations, it is not the sole justification for such transparency. Access to case resolutions strengthens ethics education, enhances accountability and transparency, facilitates contributions to the field and advocacy, and mitigates the emotional uncertainty that can arise when ethicists lack closure on complex cases. Although concerns about confidentiality and administrative constraints must be considered, they should not hinder efforts to foster a more transparent consultation process.

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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
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
×
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