Ethics Consultation in United States Hospitals: Assessment of Training Needs.

Q3 Medicine Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2021-01-01
Ellen Fox, Anita J Tarzian, Marian Danis, Christopher C Duke
{"title":"Ethics Consultation in United States Hospitals: Assessment of Training Needs.","authors":"Ellen Fox,&nbsp;Anita J Tarzian,&nbsp;Marian Danis,&nbsp;Christopher C Duke","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To help inform the development of more accessible, acceptable, and effective ethics consultation (EC) training programs, we conducted an EC training needs assessment, exploring ethics practitioners' opinions on: the relative importance of various EC practitioner competencies; the potential market for EC training (that is, how many individuals would benefit and how much individuals and hospitals would be willing to pay); and the preferred content, format, and characteristics of EC training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As part of a multipart study, we surveyed \"best informants\" who self-identified as the person most actively involved in EC or healthcare ethics in a random sample of 600 U.S. general hospitals, stratified for bed size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The competency that was ranked most important for a lead or solo ethics consultant was knowledge of ethics, while common sense was ranked least important. The median estimated number of individuals at each hospital who would benefit from EC training was six at the basic level, three at the advanced level, and two for EC management training. In 19.1 percent of hospitals, respondents thought their hospital would not be willing to pay anything for EC training within the next two years. Respondents thought potential trainees would be likely to participate in EC training on multiple different topics. Opinions varied widely on preferred formats. Most respondents thought it very important to be able to interact with instructors and with other trainees, practice EC skills, receive a certificate for completing EC training, and complete EC training during work hours.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings provide U.S. population data that may be useful to healthcare educators and bioethics leaders in their efforts to develop EC training programs and products that match trainees' preferences and needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"247-255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To help inform the development of more accessible, acceptable, and effective ethics consultation (EC) training programs, we conducted an EC training needs assessment, exploring ethics practitioners' opinions on: the relative importance of various EC practitioner competencies; the potential market for EC training (that is, how many individuals would benefit and how much individuals and hospitals would be willing to pay); and the preferred content, format, and characteristics of EC training.

Methods: As part of a multipart study, we surveyed "best informants" who self-identified as the person most actively involved in EC or healthcare ethics in a random sample of 600 U.S. general hospitals, stratified for bed size.

Results: The competency that was ranked most important for a lead or solo ethics consultant was knowledge of ethics, while common sense was ranked least important. The median estimated number of individuals at each hospital who would benefit from EC training was six at the basic level, three at the advanced level, and two for EC management training. In 19.1 percent of hospitals, respondents thought their hospital would not be willing to pay anything for EC training within the next two years. Respondents thought potential trainees would be likely to participate in EC training on multiple different topics. Opinions varied widely on preferred formats. Most respondents thought it very important to be able to interact with instructors and with other trainees, practice EC skills, receive a certificate for completing EC training, and complete EC training during work hours.

Conclusions: These findings provide U.S. population data that may be useful to healthcare educators and bioethics leaders in their efforts to develop EC training programs and products that match trainees' preferences and needs.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国医院伦理咨询:培训需求评估。
背景:为了帮助制定更容易获得、可接受和有效的伦理咨询(EC)培训计划,我们进行了一项伦理咨询培训需求评估,探讨道德从业者对以下方面的看法:各种伦理咨询从业者能力的相对重要性;电子商务培训的潜在市场(即有多少个人将受益,个人和医院愿意支付多少费用);电子商务培训的首选内容、形式和特点。方法:作为多部分研究的一部分,我们在600家美国综合医院的随机样本中调查了自认为最积极参与EC或医疗保健伦理的“最佳举报人”,按床位大小分层。结果:对于首席或单独的道德顾问来说,最重要的能力是道德知识,而常识的重要性最低。每所医院受益于EC培训的人数中位数估计为:初级培训6人,高级培训3人,EC管理培训2人。在19.1%的医院中,受访者认为他们的医院在未来两年内不愿意为电子商务培训支付任何费用。受访者认为潜在的学员可能会参加多个不同主题的培训。对于首选的格式,众说纷纭。大多数受访者认为,能够与讲师和其他受训者互动、练习电子商务技能、获得完成电子商务培训的证书以及在工作时间完成电子商务培训是非常重要的。结论:这些发现提供了美国人口数据,可能对医疗保健教育者和生物伦理学领导者开发符合受训者偏好和需求的EC培训计划和产品有用。
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
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
期刊最新文献
Dual Advocates in Deceased Organ Donation: The Potential for Moral Distress in Organ Procurement Organization Staff. Duty to Family: Ethical Considerations in the Resuscitation Bay. Home Birth in the United States: An Evidence-Based Ethical Analysis. How Should We Allocate Divisible Resources? An Overlooked Question. New Ways to Help Patients Worst Off.
×
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