Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30775581›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2019

Clinical ethics consultations in psychiatric compared to non-psychiatric medical settings: characteristics and outcomes.

T Löbbing, S Carvalho Fernando, M Driessen, M Schulz, J Behrens, K K B Kobert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Intersectionality as a tool for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

T LöbbingDepartment of Clinical Ethics, Evangelisches Klinikum Bethel, Kantensiek 19, 33617 Bielefeld, Germany.
S Carvalho FernandoClinic of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Evangelisches Klinikum Bethel, Remterweg 69/71, 33617 Bielefeld, Germany.
M DriessenClinic of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Evangelisches Klinikum Bethel, Remterweg 69/71, 33617 Bielefeld, Germany.
M SchulzDiaconic University of Applied Sciences, Bethelweg 8, 33617 Bielefeld, Germany.
J BehrensInstitute of Nursing and Healthcare, Halle-Wittenberg University, Magdeburger Straße 8, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany.
K K B KobertDepartment of Clinical Ethics, Evangelisches Klinikum Bethel, Kantensiek 19, 33617 Bielefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Psychiatry

Identifiers

PMID30775581
PMCPMC6360452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.