ArticleNursing ethics
Team members perspectives on conflicts in clinical ethics committees.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hidden Dimensions in Clinical Ethics Consultation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Interprofessional KOPAL case conferences on patients with non-oncological palliative care needs - a qualitative analysis of interaction.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- [Clinical Ethics Consultation: Ethics matter to all of us!]Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025Article
- Reporting and managing ethical issues in intensive care using the critical incident reporting system.Nursing ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Living bioethics, clinical ethics committees and children's consent to heart surgery.Clinical ethics · 2022Article
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.