Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30935285›Full record

ArticleNursing ethics

Team members perspectives on conflicts in clinical ethics committees.

Anika Scherer, Bernd Alt-Epping, Friedemann Nauck, Gabriella Marx

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing ethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Hidden Dimensions in Clinical Ethics Consultation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anika Scherer
Bernd Alt-Epping
Friedemann NauckUniversity Medical Center Göttingen, Germany.
Gabriella MarxUniversity Medical Center Göttingen, Germany; University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical ethics committees have been broadly implemented in university hospitals, general hospitals and nursing homes. To ensure the quality of ethics consultations, evaluation should be mandatory. RESEARCH QUESTION/

aimThe aim of this article is to evaluate the perspectives of all people involved and the process of implementation on the wards. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

participantsThe data were collected in two steps: by means of non-participating observation of four ethics case consultations and by open-guided interviews with 28 participants. Data analysis was performed according to grounded theory. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study received approval from the local Ethics Commission (registration no.: 32/11/10).

findings'Communication problems' and 'hierarchical team conflicts' proved to be the main aspects that led to ethics consultation, involving two factors: unresolvable differences arise in the context of team conflicts on the ward and unresolvable differences prevent a solution being found. Hierarchical asymmetries, which are common in the medical field, support this vicious circle. Based on this, minor or major disagreements regarding clinical decisions might be seen as ethical conflicts. The expectation on the clinical ethics committee is to solve this (communication) problem, but the participants experienced that hierarchy is maintained by the clinical ethics committee members. DISCUSSION: The asymmetrical structures of the clinical ethics committee reflect the institutional hierarchical nature. They endure, despite the fact that the clinical ethics committee should be able to detect and overcome them. Disagreements among care givers are described as one of the most difficult ethically relevant situations and should be recognised by the clinical ethics committee. On the contrary, discussion of team conflicts and clinical ethical issues should not be combined, since the first is a mandate for team supervision.

conclusionTo avoid dominance by physicians and an excessively factual character of the presentation, the case or conflict could be presented by both physicians and nurses, a strategy that strengthens the interpersonal and emotional aspects and also integrates both professional perspectives.

Indexed as

AdultAttitude of Health PersonnelEthics ConsultationFemaleGrounded TheoryHealth PersonnelHumansInterprofessional RelationsInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQualitative ResearchRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical ethicscommunicationethics consultationqualitative evaluationteam conflicts

Identifiers

PMID30935285
PMCPMC7323753
OpenAlexW2928070472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.