ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics
The use of an online comment system in clinical ethics consultation.
Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The utility of website-based quality improvement tools for health professionals: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Pooled it
- The development of an online-based rural community of practice framework for addressing health issues among rural citizens: a grounded theory approach.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Ethical issues in oncology practice: a qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences and expectations.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- A systematic review and meta-synthesis of policy intervention characteristics that influence the implementation of government-directed policy in the hospital setting: implications for infection prevention and control.Journal of infection prevention · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough a mechanism for resolving ethical issues in patient care is required for accreditation of American hospitals, there are no formal qualifications for providing clinical ethics consultation (CEC), and there remains great variability in the composition of ethics committees and consult services. Consequently, the quality of CEC also varies depending on the qualifications of those performing CEC services and the format of CEC utilized at an institution. Our institution implemented an online CEC comment system to build upon existing practices to promote consistency and broad consensus in CEC services and enable quality assurance.
methodsThis qualitative study explored the use of an online comment system in ethics consultation and its impact on consensus building and quality assurance. All adult ethics consultations recorded between January 2011 and May 2015 (n = 159) were analyzed for themes using both open and directed coding methods.
resultsWe found that comments broadly reflected three categories: expressions of approval/agreement (87% of consults), comments about the case (89%), and comments about the written record (72%). More than one-third of consults included responses to other comments (37%). The most common types of "comments about the case" included requests for additional information (36%), recommendations for additional services (21%), and references to formal policies/standards (28%). Comments often spanned multiple categories and themes. Comments about the written record emphasized accessibility, clarity, and specificity in ethics consultation communication.
conclusionsWe find the online system allows for broad committee participation in consultations and helps improve the quality of CEC provided by allowing for substantive discussion and consensus building. Further, we find the use of an online comment system and subsequent records can serve as an educational tool for students, trainees, and ethics committee members.
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.