Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25517564›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of clinical ethics2014

Developing and testing a checklist to enhance quality in clinical ethics consultation.

Lauren Sydney Flicker, Susannah L Rose, Margo M Eves, Anne Lederman Flamm, Ruchi Sanghani, Martin L Smith

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of clinical ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Conducting Research with Highly Portable MRI in Community Settings: A Practical Guide to Navigating Ethical Issues and ELSI Checklist.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. CHECKLIST USE FOR ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION WITH TRANS-TIBIAL PROSTHESES.Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Developing an Evaluation Tool for Assessing Clinical Ethics Consultation Skills in Simulation Based Education: The ACES Project.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren Sydney FlickerMontefiore Einstein Center for Bioethics, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY USA.
Susannah L RoseCleveland Clinic Department of Bioethics, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJ60, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA. roses2@CCF.org.
Margo M EvesCleveland Clinic Department of Bioethics, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJ60, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA.
Anne Lederman FlammCleveland Clinic Department of Bioethics, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJ60, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA.
Ruchi SanghaniCleveland Clinic Department of Bioethics, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJ60, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA.
Martin L SmithCleveland Clinic Department of Bioethics, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJ60, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandKL2TR000440 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$11.1M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Checklists have been used to improve quality in many industries, including healthcare. The use of checklists, however, has not been extensively evaluated in clinical ethics consultation. This article seeks to fill this gap by exploring the efficacy of using a checklist in ethics consultation, as tested by an empirical investigation of the use of the checklist at a large academic medical system (Cleveland Clinic). The specific aims of this project are as follows: (1) to improve the quality of ethics consultations by providing reminders to ethics consultants about process steps that are important for most patient-centered ethics consultations, (2) to create consistency in the ethics consultation process across the medical system, and (3) to establish an effective educational tool for trainers and trainees in clinical ethics consultation. The checklist was developed after a thorough literature review and an iterative process of revising and testing by a group of experienced ethics consultants. To pilot test the checklist, it was distributed to 46 ethics consultants. After a six-month pilot period in which ethics professionals used the checklist during their clinical activities, a survey was distributed to all of those who used the checklist. The 10-item survey examined consultants' perceptions regarding the three aims listed above. Of the 25 survey respondents, 11 self-reported as experts in ethics consultation, nine perceived themselves to have mid-level expertise, and five self-reported as novices. The majority (68 percent) of all respondents, regardless of expertise, believed that the checklist could be a "helpful" or "very helpful" tool in the consultation process generally. Novices were more likely than experts to believe that the checklist would be useful in conducting consultations. The limitations of this study include: reduced generalizability given that this project was conducted at one medical system, utilized a small sample size, and used self-reported quality outcome measures. Despite these limitations, to the authors' knowledge this is the first investigation of the use of a checklist systematically to improve quality in ethics consultation. Importantly, our findings shed light on ways this checklist can be used to improve ethics consultation, including its use as an educational tool. The authors hope to test the checklist with consultants in other healthcare systems to explore its usefulness in different healthcare environments.

Indexed as

ChecklistEthicistsEthics ConsultationQuality of Health CareAcademic Medical CentersAdultFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedOhioPatient-Centered CareReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSample Size

Identifiers

PMID25517564
PMCPMC4552192
OpenAlexW2460203554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.