ArticleHEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues2026
Should Clinical Ethicists Be Informed About Case Resolutions?
Article in HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The question of whether clinical ethicists should be informed of case resolutions remains unresolved. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) recommends retrospective case reviews to assess whether recommendations were followed, it frames this practice solely as a quality improvement measure. While quality enhancement is a compelling rationale for ensuring that clinical ethicists are informed of the resolutions of consultations, it is not the sole justification for such transparency. Access to case resolutions strengthens ethics education, enhances accountability and transparency, facilitates contributions to the field and advocacy, and mitigates the emotional uncertainty that can arise when ethicists lack closure on complex cases. Although concerns about confidentiality and administrative constraints must be considered, they should not hinder efforts to foster a more transparent consultation process.
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.