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).

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1136/jme-2024-110250
Raj K Mohindra, Stephen J Louw
{"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.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Assessing the impact of information on patient attitudes toward artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS): a pilot web-based SMART vignette study. Moral parenthood and gestation: replies to Cordeiro, Murphy, Robinson and Baron. Ethical reflection of Chinese scientists on the dual-use concerns of emerging medical biotechnology. Ecological preferences and patient autonomy. 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).
×
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