ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Ethical Decision-Making and Clinical Ethics Support in Italian Neonatal Intensive Care Units: Results from a National Survey.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesNeonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) constitute a highly complex clinical environment characterized by patient fragility and frequent ethically sensitive decisions. To date, systematic studies investigating how Italian NICUs address these challenges and what forms of ethics support are effectively available are lacking. The aim of this study is therefore to assess how ethical issues are managed in Italian NICUs, with particular attention to the availability, use, and perceived usefulness of clinical ethics support in everyday practice.
methodsA 25-item questionnaire was developed by adapting an existing tool for investigating clinical ethics activities to the neonatal context. Following expert review by the GIBCE (Gruppo Interdisciplinare di Bioetica Clinica e Consulenza Etica in ambito sanitario), the final instrument covered four areas (general data, experience with ethical dilemmas, tools and procedures, opinions and training needs). A manual web search identified all Italian NICUs and their clinical directors, who were asked to disseminate the survey among staff. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Data collection was conducted via Google Forms and analyzed through qualitative thematic analysis.
resultsA total of 217 questionnaires were collected. The most frequent ethical dilemmas concern quality of life with anticipated multiple or severe disabilities (72.4%) and decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments (64.5%). Major challenges include fear of medico-legal repercussions (57.6%) and communication divergences between physicians and nurses (49.8%). More than half of respondents (52.1%) reported no formal training in clinical ethics, and 68.7% had never developed a Shared Care Plan (Shared Document for healthcare ethics planning) as defined by the Italian Law 219/2017.
conclusionsFindings highlight marked fragmentation in ethical practices across Italian NICUs. On this basis, establishing structured and accessible CEC services could help promote consistency, reinforce shared ethical standards, and support transparent and equitable decision-making in critical neonatal care.
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.