Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26842932›Full record

ArticleHEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues2016

Just a Collection of Recollections: Clinical Ethics Consultation and the Interplay of Evaluating Voices.

Virginia L Bartlett, Mark J Bliton, Stuart G Finder

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Clinical Ethics Consultations and the Necessity of NOT Meeting Expectations: I Never Promised You a Rose Garden.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2024
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Virginia L BartlettCenter for Healthcare Ethics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd - TSB 240, Los Angeles, CA, 90035, USA. virginia.bartlett@cshs.org.
Mark J BlitonMedical Bioethics, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, 4867 Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA.
Stuart G FinderCenter for Healthcare Ethics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd - TSB 240, Los Angeles, CA, 90035, USA.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USKaiser Permanente · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite increased attention to the question of how best to evaluate clinical ethics consultations and emphasis on external evaluation (Hastings Center Report, ASBH Quality Attestation Process), there has been little sustained focus on how we, as clinicians, make sense of and learn from our own experiences in the midst of any one consultation. Questions of how we evaluate the request for, unfolding of, and conclusion of any specific ethics consultation are often overlooked, along with the underlying question of whether it is possible to give an accurate account of clinical ethics consultants' experience as experienced by ethics consultants. Before the challenge of submitting one's accounts or case reports for review and evaluation from others (at one's local institution or in the broader field), there is an underlying challenge of understanding and evaluating our own accounts. To highlight this crucial and deeply challenging dimension of actual clinical ethics practice, we present an account of a complex consultation, explicitly constructed to engage the reader in the unfolding experience of the consultant by emphasizing the multiple perspectives unfolding within the consultant's experience. Written in script format, the three perspectives presented-prototypical clinically descriptive account; didactically reflective and self-evidentiary account often seen in journal presentations; highly self-critical reflective account emphasizing uncertainties inherent to clinical ethics practice-reflect different manners for responding to the ways actual clinical involvement in ethics consultation practice accentuates and refocuses the question of how to understand and evaluate our own work, as well as that of our colleagues.

Indexed as

Ethics, ClinicalInterpersonal RelationsSelf ReportEthics ConsultationHumansQuality of Health CareClinical ethics consultationEvaluationExperienceQuality attestation processReflection

Identifiers

PMID26842932
OpenAlexW2297333993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.