Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28231781›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

How to introduce medical ethics at the bedside - Factors influencing the implementation of an ethical decision-making model.

Barbara Meyer-Zehnder, Heidi Albisser Schleger, Sabine Tanner, Valentin Schnurrer, Deborah R Vogt, Stella Reiter-Theil, Hans Pargger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Barbara Meyer-ZehnderDepartment of Clinical Ethics, Psychiatric Hospitals and University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Strasse 27, 4012, Basel, Switzerland. barbara.meyer@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7178-7707
Heidi Albisser SchlegerDepartment of Clinical Ethics, Psychiatric Hospitals and University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Strasse 27, 4012, Basel, Switzerland.
Sabine TannerDepartment of Clinical Ethics, Psychiatric Hospitals and University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Strasse 27, 4012, Basel, Switzerland.
Valentin SchnurrerDepartment of Clinical Ethics, Psychiatric Hospitals and University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Strasse 27, 4012, Basel, Switzerland.
Deborah R VogtClinical Trail Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Spitalstrasse 12, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Stella Reiter-TheilDepartment of Clinical Ethics, Psychiatric Hospitals and University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Strasse 27, 4012, Basel, Switzerland.
Hans ParggerDepartment for Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care, Prehospital Emergency Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the implementation of new approaches and procedures of medical ethics is as complex and resource-consuming as in other fields, strategies and activities must be carefully planned to use the available means and funds responsibly. Which facilitators and barriers influence the implementation of a medical ethics decision-making model in daily routine? Up to now, there has been little examination of these factors in this field.

methodsA medical ethics decision-making model called METAP was introduced on three intensive care units and two geriatric wards. An evaluation study was performed from 7 months after deployment of the project until two and a half years. Quantitative and qualitative methods including a questionnaire, semi-structured face-to-face and group-interviews were used.

resultsSixty-three participants from different professional groups took part in 33 face-to-face and 9 group interviews, and 122 questionnaires could be analysed. The facilitating factors most frequently mentioned were: acceptance and presence of the model, support given by the medical and nursing management, an existing or developing (explicit) ethics culture, perception of a need for a medical ethics decision-making model, and engaged staff members. Lack of presence and acceptance, insufficient time resources and staff, poor inter-professional collaboration, absence of ethical competence, and not recognizing ethical problems were identified as inhibiting the implementation of the METAP model. However, the results of the questionnaire as well as of explicit inquiry showed that the respondents stated to have had enough time and staff available to use METAP if necessary.

conclusionsFacilitators and barriers of the implementation of a medical ethics decision-making model are quite similar to that of medical guidelines. The planning for implementing an ethics model or guideline can, therefore, benefit from the extensive literature and experience concerning the implementation of medical guidelines. Lack of time and staff can be overcome when people are convinced that the benefits justify the effort.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEthics, MedicalAgedDecision MakingFemaleHospitalizationHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleModels, TheoreticalPersonnel, HospitalSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkloadBarriersEthical decision-making modelFacilitatorsImplementationMedical ethics

Identifiers

PMID28231781
PMCPMC5324224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.