ArticleHeliyon2019
Clinical ethics consultations in psychiatric compared to non-psychiatric medical settings: characteristics and outcomes.
Article in Heliyon, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences with remote ethics consultation: a qualitative study with ethics consultants in Germany.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- [Clinical Ethics Consultation: Ethics matter to all of us!]Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025Article
- Utilization and Evaluation of Ethics Consultation Services in Neonatal Intensive Care.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- [The Basel model of principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation 2.0 : An introduction for psychiatry].Der Nervenarzt · 2024Article
- [Theoretical foundations of clinical ethics consultation in psychiatry].Der Nervenarzt · 2024Article
- Intersectionality as a tool for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2024Article
- Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Clinical ethics case consultation in a university department of cardiology and intensive care: a descriptive evaluation of consultation protocols.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Types of Ethical Problems and Expertise in Clinical Ethics Consultation in Psychiatry - Insights From a Qualitative Empirical Ethics Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations: a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the recent years clinical ethics consultations (CEC) received an increasing attention not only in patients with medical conditions but also in those with mental disorders. However, the systematic and empirical knowledge is still small. The aim of this observational study was to investigate whether CECs differ between psychiatric and medical hospital inpatients regarding ethical issues, goals, characteristics, processes, and outcomes.
methodsThis is a retrospective and in parts prospective analysis of a semi-structured CEC approach provided by the CEC service at a large German general hospital between January 2006 and June 2015.
resultsA total of 259 CECs in three inpatient settings were investigated, i.e. intensive care units (ICU, 43.6%), low care units (LCU, 33.6%), and psychiatric care units (PCU, 22.8%). In all groups, most ethical issues addressed treatment intensity (80.6%) and resulted in over 93% in participants' agreement on final ethical recommendations as well as in high implementation rates (>89%). However, we found significant group differences: In PCUs patients participated more often in the CEC (p < .001), the number of all participants was higher (p < .001), CECs were more time expensive (p < .001), and more recommendations focused on interventions against the patients' declared intention (37.7% versus 0%) than in the other groups. DISCUSSION: In spite of different clinical characteristics and ethical issues between patients and settings, consensus and implementation of the CEC recommendation could be achieved at a high rate in all groups. There are substantial differences regarding goals, participation of patients, and processes. It is worth considering adapting the CEC to the special needs in psychiatric settings, especially under the aspect of the patients' perspective and involvement.
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.