ArticleMedical care2010
The role of ethics committees and ethics consultation in allocation decisions: a 4-stage process.
Article in Medical care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- From statutory mandate to institutional integration: lessons from the national survey of Israel's healthcare ethics committees.Israel journal of health policy research · 2026Article
- Ethical Awareness and Practices Among Emergency Department Personnel in Riyadh's Tertiary Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Ethical case interventions for adult patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Review
- Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- An Exploration of the Role of Hospital Committees to Enhance Productivity.Global journal of health science · 2015Article
- [Rationalization and rationing at the bedside. A normative and empirical status quo analysis].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014Article
- How can bedside rationing be justified despite coexisting inefficiency? The need for 'benchmarks of efficiency'.Journal of medical ethics · 2014Article
- [Avoidance of overuse as an integral part of medical professionalism. Conceptual analysis and new perspective].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2014Article
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
Abstract
backgroundDecisions about the allocation and rationing of medical interventions likely occur in all health care systems worldwide. So far very little attention has been given to the question of what role ethics consultation and ethics committees could or should play in questions of allocation at the hospital level. OBJECTIVES AND
methodsThis article argues for the need for ethics consultation in rationing decisions using empirical data about the status quo and the inherent nature of bedside rationing. Subsequently, it introduces a 4-stage process for establishing and conducting ethics consultation in rationing questions with systematic reference to core elements of procedural justice.
resultsQualitative and quantitative findings show a significant demand for ethics consultation expressed directly by doctors, as well as additional indirect evidence of such a need as indicated by ethically challenging circumstances of inconsistent and structurally disadvantaging rationing decisions. To address this need, we suggest 4 stages for establishing and conducting ethics consultation in rationing questions we recommend: (1) training, (2) identifying actual scarcity-related problems at clinics, (3) supporting decision-making, and (4) evaluation.
conclusionThis process of ethics consultation regarding rationing decisions would facilitate the achievement of several practical goals: (i) encouragement of an awareness and understanding of ethical problems in bedside rationing, (ii) encouragement of achieving efficiency along with rationing, (iii) reinforcement of consistency in inter- and intraindividual decision-making, (iv) encouragement of explicit reflection and justification of the prioritization criteria taken into consideration, (v) improvement in internal (in-house) and external transparency, and (vi) prevention of the misuse of the corresponding consulting structures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.