ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2008
Clinicians' evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: a qualitative study.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Pooled it
- The VALUE Study: Exploring the Value of a Clinical Ethics Consultation Service at the "A. Gemelli" Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Current State and Challenges of Clinical Ethics Consultation for Prenatal Diagnosis: A Qualitative Study of Committee Employee Perspectives in China.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Ethics rounds in the ambulance service: a qualitative evaluation.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Ethical issues in oncology practice: a qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences and expectations.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Making the (Business) Case for Clinical Ethics Support in the UK.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2021Article
- Clinical Ethics Consultations in the Opinion of Polish Physicians.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Challenges of hospital ethics committees: a phenomenological study.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Clinical Ethics Consultation in the Transition Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Falling on deaf ears: a qualitative study on clinical ethical committees in France.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2019Article
- Important outcomes of moral case deliberation: a Euro-MCD field survey of healthcare professionals' priorities.Journal of medical ethics · 2019Article
- Ethical challenges assessed in the clinical ethics Committee of Psychiatry in the region of Southern Denmark in 2010-2015: a qualitative content analyses.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Jonsen's Four Topics Approach as a Framework for Clinical Ethics Consultation.Asian bioethics review · 2018Article
- Inspectors' ethical challenges in health care regulation: a pilot study.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
- The Norwegian national project for ethics support in community health and care services.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Novel Paths to Relevance: How Clinical Ethics Committees Promote Ethical Reflection.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2016Article
- Ethics reflection groups in community health services: an evaluation study.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical ethics committees have existed in Norway since 1996. By now all hospital trusts have one. An evaluation of these committees' work was started in 2004. This paper presents results from an interview study of eight clinicians who evaluated six committees' deliberations on 10 clinical cases. The study indicates that the clinicians found the clinical ethics consultations useful and worth while doing. However, a systematic approach to case consultations is vital. Procedures and mandate of the committees should be known to clinicians in advance to ensure that they know what to expect. Equally important is bringing all relevant facts, medical as well as psychosocial, into the discussion. A written report from the deliberation is also important for the committees to be taken seriously by the clinicians. This study indicates that the clinicians want to be included in the deliberation, and not only in the preparation or follow-up. Obstacles for referring a case to the committee are the medical culture's conflict aversion and its anxiety of being judged by outsiders. The committees were described as a court by some of the clinicians. This is a challenge for the committees in their attempt to balance support and critique in their consultation services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17909984What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.