Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651308›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Hospital ethics reflection groups: a learning and development resource for clinical practice.

H Bruun, L Huniche, E Stenager, C B Mogensen, R Pedersen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

H BruunFocused Research Unit in Psychiatry, Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Henriette.bruun@rsyd.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-3955-269X
L HunicheDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
E StenagerFocused Research Unit in Psychiatry, Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
C B MogensenFocused Research Unit in Emergency Medicine, Institute for Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
R PedersenCenter for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
University of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a number of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the significance of ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark.

methodsThis is a qualitative action research study, including systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers. Short written descriptions of the ethical challenges presented in the ERGs also informed the analysis of significance.

resultsA recurring ethical challenge for clinicians, in a total of 63 cases described and assessed in 3 ethical reflection groups, is to strike a balance between respect for patient autonomy, paternalistic responsibility, professional responsibilities and institutional values. Both in psychiatric and general hospital departments, the study participants report a positive impact of ERG, which can be divided into three categories: 1) Significance for patients, 2) Significance for clinicians, and 3) Significance for ward managers. In wards characterized by short-time patient admissions, the cases assessed were retrospective and the beneficiaries of improved dialogue mainly future patients rather than the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge presented. In wards with longer admissions, the patients concerned also benefitted from the dialogue in the ERG.

conclusionThis study indicates a positive significance and impact of ERGs; constituting an interdisciplinary learning resource for clinicians, creating significance for themselves, the ward managers and the organization. By introducing specific examples, this study indicates that ERGs have significance for the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge, but mostly indirectly through learning among clinicians and development of clinical practice. More research is needed to further investigate the impact of ERGs seen from the perspectives of patients and relatives.

Indexed as

Ethics, InstitutionalAnthropology, CulturalAttitude of Health PersonnelDenmarkEthics Committees, ClinicalHospital DepartmentsHumansInterviews as TopicMoralsPaternalismPersonal AutonomyProfessional RolePsychiatric Department, HospitalQualitative ResearchRetrospective StudiesAction researchEmergency hospitalEthics reflection groupsEvaluationPsychiatric hospitalSignificance

Identifiers

PMID31651308
PMCPMC6813973
OpenAlexW2981902717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.