ArticlePCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2023
Clinical ethics problems in psychiatry and the need for clinical ethics consultation in Japan: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a novel instrument to measure Japanese psychiatric nurses' technological competency as caring in nursing.Belitung nursing journal · 2025Article
- [The Basel model of principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation 2.0 : An introduction for psychiatry].Der Nervenarzt · 2024Article
- Clinical ethics problems in psychiatry and the need for clinical ethics consultation in Japan: A cross-sectional study.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Psychiatrists often encounter ethical dilemmas in their daily clinical practice. Clinical ethics consultations (CECs) have been recently increasing, especially in general hospitals. However, the current situation in the psychiatric field is unclear. This study clarifies clinical ethics problems in psychiatry and determines the need for CECs. Methods: We conducted an anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey in February 2022, which targeted directors and supervisors of psychiatric specialty training programs at 1224 psychiatry facilities. Results: Responses were received from 311 facilities (response rate: 25.4%). CEC systems existed in 223 (72.2%) facilities, and medical safety committees were the most common. Clinical ethics problems occurred at 248 (80.3%) facilities; the most common method for managing the problems was discussions at case conferences without using CECs. The top four reasons for psychiatrists to solicit advice were conflicts with patients' relatives, treating a patient with cognitive impairment, discontinuation of treatment, and suicide/attempted suicide. Most respondents (89.9%) considered CECs necessary. Conclusion: Although CECs exist in psychiatry, they may not meet the needs of clients. Future studies are needed to investigate client satisfaction and CEC evaluation methods in facilities where psychiatric CECs are provided.
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.