Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31675970›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Lessons learned from implementing a responsive quality assessment of clinical ethics support.

Eva M Van Baarle, Marieke C Potma, Maria E C van Hoek, Laura A Hartman, Bert A C Molewijk, Jelle L P van Gurp

Abstract 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Conceptualizing and Fostering the Quality of CES Through a Dutch National Network on CES (NEON).HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Eva M Van BaarleNetherlands Defense Academy, Breda, the Netherlands. em.v.baarle@mindef.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0212-3090
Marieke C PotmaAmsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Centre (VUmc), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Maria E C van HoekAmsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Centre (VUmc), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Laura A HartmanAmsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Centre (VUmc), EMGO+, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bert A C MolewijkAmsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Centre (VUmc), EMGO+, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jelle L P van GurpAmsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Centre (VUmc), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious forms of Clinical Ethics Support (CES) have been developed in health care organizations. Over the past years, increasing attention has been paid to the question of how to foster the quality of ethics support. In the Netherlands, a CES quality assessment project based on a responsive evaluation design has been implemented. CES practitioners themselves reflected upon the quality of ethics support within each other's health care organizations. This study presents a qualitative evaluation of this Responsive Quality Assessment (RQA) project.

methodsCES practitioners' experiences with and perspectives on the RQA project were collected by means of ten semi-structured interviews. Both the data collection and the qualitative data analysis followed a stepwise approach, including continuous peer review and careful documentation of the decisions.

resultsThe main findings illustrate the relevance of the RQA with regard to fostering the quality of CES by connecting to context specific issues, such as gaining support from upper management and to solidify CES services within health care organizations. Based on their participation in the RQA, CES practitioners perceived a number of changes regarding CES in Dutch health care organizations after the RQA: acknowledgement of the relevance of CES for the quality of care; CES practices being more formalized; inspiration for developing new CES-related activities and more self-reflection on existing CES practices.

conclusionsThe evaluation of the RQA shows that this method facilitates an open learning process by actively involving CES practitioners and their concrete practices. Lessons learned include that "servant leadership" and more intensive guidance of RQA participants may help to further enhance both the critical dimension and the learning process within RQA.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEthicistsEthics Committees, ClinicalHumansMotivationNetherlandsPerceptionQualitative ResearchClinical ethics supportLearning networkResponsive evaluationResponsive quality assessment

Identifiers

PMID31675970
PMCPMC6824048

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.