Clinical Ethics Fellowship Programs in the United States and Canada: Program Directors' Opinions About Accreditation and Funding.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2024.2388516
Ellen Fox, Jason Adam Wasserman
{"title":"Clinical Ethics Fellowship Programs in the United States and Canada: Program Directors' Opinions About Accreditation and Funding.","authors":"Ellen Fox, Jason Adam Wasserman","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2388516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To succeed, an accreditation process for clinical ethics fellowship programs (CEFPs) would need support from CEFP directors. To assess CEFP directors' opinions, we surveyed all 36 CEFP directors in the United States and Canada, achieving a 100% response rate. We found that support for accreditation is strong, with 30.6% strongly supportive, 44.4% supportive, 22.2% neutral, 2.8% opposed, and 0% strongly opposed. Most directors (77.8%) would be likely to apply for accreditation within the next five years regardless of the availability of government funding; even more (86.1%) would apply if government funding became available for accredited programs. Most directors thought that lack of a national accreditation process (75.0%), lack of agreed-upon standards (90.0%), and lack of funding for CEFPs (91.7%) were at least moderate problems for the field. When directors were asked what they thought was the greatest challenge or barrier to developing an accreditation process, many mentioned the diversity of programs and the challenge of achieving consensus on accreditation standards. Directors offered a variety of suggestions for how to overcome or manage challenges or barriers, including collecting data on existing programs, mirroring standards established for other health professions, and setting clear expectations on the need for compromise. When directors were asked how they expected that accreditation and government funding would affect their own programs, the field of clinical ethics, and patient care, directors mostly had very positive expectations; no director expected negative effects in any of these areas. Overall, this study provides evidence that developing an accreditation process for CEFPs would be both possible and desirable. Our findings have immediate practical implications for the field and will inform efforts that are already underway to establish an accreditation process for CEFPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2024.2388516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To succeed, an accreditation process for clinical ethics fellowship programs (CEFPs) would need support from CEFP directors. To assess CEFP directors' opinions, we surveyed all 36 CEFP directors in the United States and Canada, achieving a 100% response rate. We found that support for accreditation is strong, with 30.6% strongly supportive, 44.4% supportive, 22.2% neutral, 2.8% opposed, and 0% strongly opposed. Most directors (77.8%) would be likely to apply for accreditation within the next five years regardless of the availability of government funding; even more (86.1%) would apply if government funding became available for accredited programs. Most directors thought that lack of a national accreditation process (75.0%), lack of agreed-upon standards (90.0%), and lack of funding for CEFPs (91.7%) were at least moderate problems for the field. When directors were asked what they thought was the greatest challenge or barrier to developing an accreditation process, many mentioned the diversity of programs and the challenge of achieving consensus on accreditation standards. Directors offered a variety of suggestions for how to overcome or manage challenges or barriers, including collecting data on existing programs, mirroring standards established for other health professions, and setting clear expectations on the need for compromise. When directors were asked how they expected that accreditation and government funding would affect their own programs, the field of clinical ethics, and patient care, directors mostly had very positive expectations; no director expected negative effects in any of these areas. Overall, this study provides evidence that developing an accreditation process for CEFPs would be both possible and desirable. Our findings have immediate practical implications for the field and will inform efforts that are already underway to establish an accreditation process for CEFPs.

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
美国和加拿大的临床伦理学研究员计划:美国和加拿大的临床伦理奖学金项目:项目主任对认证和资助的看法》(Program Directors' Opinions About Accreditation and Funding.
临床伦理学研究员项目(CEFP)的评审程序要取得成功,需要得到 CEFP 主任的支持。为了评估 CEFP 主任的意见,我们对美国和加拿大的所有 36 位 CEFP 主任进行了调查,回复率达到 100%。我们发现,对评审的支持力度很大,30.6%的人非常支持,44.4%的人支持,22.2%的人中立,2.8%的人反对,0%的人强烈反对。大多数主任(77.8%)认为,无论是否有政府资助,他们都有可能在未来五年内申请评审;如果政府能为通过评审的项目提供资助,则更多主任(86.1%)会申请评审。大多数主任认为,缺乏国家认证程序(75.0%)、缺乏一致同意的标准(90.0%)和缺乏对 CEFP 的资助(91.7%)至少是该领域存在的中等程度的问题。当主任们被问及他们认为制定认证程序的最大挑战或障碍是什么时,许多人提到了项目的多样性和就认证标准达成共识的挑战。对于如何克服或应对挑战或障碍,主任们提出了各种建议,包括收集现有项目的数据、参照为其他卫生专业制定的标准以及就妥协的必要性设定明确的预期。当主任们被问及他们预期评审和政府资助将如何影响他们自己的项目、临床伦理学领域和病人护理时,他们大多抱有非常积极的预期;没有主任预期在这些领域会产生负面影响。总之,本研究提供的证据表明,为 CEFP 制定评审程序是可能的,也是可取的。我们的研究结果对该领域有直接的实际影响,并将为已经开始的建立 CEFP 评审程序的工作提供信息。
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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
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