Report on an audit of two decades' activities of a clinical ethics committee: the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Clinical Ethics Advisory Group (CEAG).
{"title":"Report on an audit of two decades' activities of a clinical ethics committee: the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Clinical Ethics Advisory Group (CEAG).","authors":"Raj K Mohindra, Stephen J Louw","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>'The Clinical Ethics Advisory Group' (CEAG) is the clinical ethics support body for Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust. A significant change in CEAG's way of working occurred over the past 5 years as a result of Court decisions, increasing public expectations and an increase in CEAG's paediatric case flow.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Review historical data: (a) as a useful benchmark to look for the early impact of significant service changes and (b) to seek possible reference ('sentinel') cases for use with a posited practical (casuistic) case-based reasoning model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Audit of the minutes of the first 22 years' meetings was undertaken by the two chairs of CEAG over that period of time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>223 matters discussed: 86 Trust policy issues; 117 clinical cases (84 adult (32 urgent), 33 child (8 urgent)); 12 CEAG procedural issues and 8 UK Clinical Ethics Network 'round robin' cases. The range of topic areas was wide. A broad range of ethical structures were deployed, principlism predominated. Quality was subjectively assessed by each reviewer, but different methods were used. This proved highly concordant between the two reviewers. 47% (105/223) of discussions were 'excellent' (*A4C4-A4C4) and 70% (156.5/223) 'good' or better (*A4C4-A3C3). By meeting the criteria of 'excellent' and 'prospective', 92/223 (41%) of matters were deemed potentially suitable as sentinel cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The audit provides a rich vein of information. There is demand for CEAG's services, workload is becoming more complex. Formal funding for such services seems justified.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110250","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: 'The Clinical Ethics Advisory Group' (CEAG) is the clinical ethics support body for Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust. A significant change in CEAG's way of working occurred over the past 5 years as a result of Court decisions, increasing public expectations and an increase in CEAG's paediatric case flow.
Purpose: Review historical data: (a) as a useful benchmark to look for the early impact of significant service changes and (b) to seek possible reference ('sentinel') cases for use with a posited practical (casuistic) case-based reasoning model.
Methods: Audit of the minutes of the first 22 years' meetings was undertaken by the two chairs of CEAG over that period of time.
Results: 223 matters discussed: 86 Trust policy issues; 117 clinical cases (84 adult (32 urgent), 33 child (8 urgent)); 12 CEAG procedural issues and 8 UK Clinical Ethics Network 'round robin' cases. The range of topic areas was wide. A broad range of ethical structures were deployed, principlism predominated. Quality was subjectively assessed by each reviewer, but different methods were used. This proved highly concordant between the two reviewers. 47% (105/223) of discussions were 'excellent' (*A4C4-A4C4) and 70% (156.5/223) 'good' or better (*A4C4-A3C3). By meeting the criteria of 'excellent' and 'prospective', 92/223 (41%) of matters were deemed potentially suitable as sentinel cases.
Conclusions: The audit provides a rich vein of information. There is demand for CEAG's services, workload is becoming more complex. Formal funding for such services seems justified.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients.
Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost.
JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.