What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Hec Forum Pub Date : 2024-02-05 DOI:10.1007/s10730-023-09519-w
Lena M Jakobsen, Bert Molewijk, Janine de Snoo-Trimp, Mia Svantesson, Gøril Ursin
{"title":"What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project.","authors":"Lena M Jakobsen, Bert Molewijk, Janine de Snoo-Trimp, Mia Svantesson, Gøril Ursin","doi":"10.1007/s10730-023-09519-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The evaluation of the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes project (Euro-MCD) has resulted in a revised evaluation instrument, knowledge about the content of MCD (moral case deliberation), and the perspectives of those involved. In this paper, we report on a perspective that has been overlooked, the facilitators'. We aim to describe facilitators' perceptions of high-quality moral case deliberation and their Euro-MCD sessions. The research took place in Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands using a survey combined with interviews with 41 facilitators. Facilitators' perceived that attaining a high-quality MCD implies fostering a safe and respectful atmosphere, creating a wondering mode, being an attentive authority, developing moral reflective skills, reaching a common understanding, and ensuring organisational prerequisites for the MCD sessions. Our central conclusion is that efforts at three levels are required to attain a high-quality MCD: trained and virtuous facilitator; committed, respectful participants; and organizational space. Furthermore, managers have a responsibility to prepare MCD participants for what it means to take part in MCD.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","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/s10730-023-09519-w","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

The evaluation of the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes project (Euro-MCD) has resulted in a revised evaluation instrument, knowledge about the content of MCD (moral case deliberation), and the perspectives of those involved. In this paper, we report on a perspective that has been overlooked, the facilitators'. We aim to describe facilitators' perceptions of high-quality moral case deliberation and their Euro-MCD sessions. The research took place in Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands using a survey combined with interviews with 41 facilitators. Facilitators' perceived that attaining a high-quality MCD implies fostering a safe and respectful atmosphere, creating a wondering mode, being an attentive authority, developing moral reflective skills, reaching a common understanding, and ensuring organisational prerequisites for the MCD sessions. Our central conclusion is that efforts at three levels are required to attain a high-quality MCD: trained and virtuous facilitator; committed, respectful participants; and organizational space. Furthermore, managers have a responsibility to prepare MCD participants for what it means to take part in MCD.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
什么是高质量的道德案例审议?
对欧洲道德案例评议成果项目(Euro-MCD)的评估修订了评估工具,了解了道德案例评议(MCD)的内容和参与人员的观点。在本文中,我们将报告一个被忽视的视角,即主持人的视角。我们旨在描述主持人对高质量道德案例评议和欧洲道德案例评议会议的看法。研究在挪威、瑞典和荷兰进行,采用了调查与访谈相结合的方式,访问了 41 位主持人。主持人认为,要实现高质量的道德案例讨论,就必须营造安全和相互尊重的氛围,创造一种想知道的模式,成为一个细心的权威,培养道德反思能力,达成共识,并确保道德案例讨论的组织前提。我们的核心结论是,要实现高质量的 "强迫性思维",需要在三个层面做出努力:训练有素、品德高尚的主持人;尽心尽力、相互尊重的参与者;以及组织空间。此外,管理者有责任让强迫性思维训练的参与者做好参加强迫性思维训练的准备。
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 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
期刊最新文献
Positioning Ethics When Direct Patient Care is Prioritized: Experiences from Implementing Ethics Case Reflection Rounds in Childhood Cancer Care. An Ethics Consult Documentation Simplification Project: Summation of Participatory Processes, User Perceptions, and Subsequent Use Patterns. Survey of Moral Distress and Self-Awareness among Health Care Professionals. The Ethics of Human Embryo Editing via CRISPR-Cas9 Technology: A Systematic Review of Ethical Arguments, Reasons, and Concerns. Correction to: Evaluation of Interventions to Address Moral Distress: A Multi-method Approach.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1