A Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) is a multi-professional service whose aim is to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organisations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice.Although CEC are quite common worldwide, their successful implementation in a hospital setting presents many challenges.EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC) will evaluate the implementation of a CEC in a comprehensive cancer centre in Northern Italy 16 months after its establishment.
EvaCEC is a mixed-method study with a retrospective quantitative analysis and a prospective qualitative evaluation by a range of data collection tools to enable the triangulation of data sources and analysis. Quantitative data related to the amount of CEC activities will be collected using the CEC\'s internal databases. Data on the level of knowledge, use and perception of the CEC will be collected through a survey with closed-ended questions disseminated among all the HPs employed at the healthcare centre. Data will be analysed with descriptive statistics.The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) will be used for the qualitative evaluation to determine whether and how the CEC can be successfully integrated into clinical practice. We will perform one-to-one semistructured interviews and a second online survey with different groups of stakeholders who had different roles in the implementation process of the CEC. Based on NPT concepts, the interviews and the survey will assess the acceptability of the CEC within the local context and needs and expectations to further develop the service.
The protocol has been approved by the local ethics committee. The project is co-chaired by a PhD candidate and by a healthcare researcher with a doctorate in bioethics and expertise in research. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops.
NCT05466292.

A clinical ethics committee (CEC) has educational, regulatory, advisory, mediation, and reflexive functions. As any health care service, the consults with the CEC should be subjected to review and quality improvement. The study objectives were to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and satisfaction with the bioethical recommendations made by the CEC and assess their impact on the treating team and the patient\'s family.
Descriptive, retrospective, qualitative, and quantitative study of clinical cases submitted to the hospital\'s CEC between January 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2017 using data from the CEC minute book, medical records, registries from the Office for Remote Communication, and semi-structured interviews with health care team members.
A total of 108 cases (106 patients) were analyzed: 73 cases with survey and registries and 35 with registries only. The main most frequent reasons for consultation were adequacy of therapeutic effort (46/42.6%), severe neurological involvement (15/13.9%), patient\'s quality of life (11/10.2%), patient-family-health system conflict (7/6.5%), and family\'s refusal of treatment (6/5.6%). High levels of satisfaction (> 95%) and moderate levels of feasibility (> 74%) and effectiveness (> 85%) were observed. In only 50/108 cases (46.3%), the consultation with the CEC was registered in the medical record, 44% of health care providers stated that the consultation had a positive impact on the patient and their family.
Results helped to establish improvement opportunities, especially in terms of documentation and communication in the consultation process.
Introducción. Las funciones del Comité de Ética Clínica (CEC) son educativas, normativas, consultivas, mediadoras y reflexivas. Como cualquier servicio de salud, las consultas de casos a un CEC deben ser sujetas a revisión y mejora de la calidad. Los objetivos fueron evaluar la factibilidad, la efectividad y la satisfacción de las recomendaciones ético-asistenciales dadas por el CEC, y evaluar su impacto en el equipo tratante y en la familia. Población y métodos. Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, cualicuantitativo, de casos clínicos presentados en el Comité de Ética Clínica del hospital desde el 1 de enero de 2013 hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2017, según datos del libro de actas, historias clínicas, registros de la Oficina de Comunicación a Distancia y entrevistas semiestructuradas al equipo de salud. Resultados. Se analizaron 108 casos (106 pacientes), 73 casos con encuesta y registros, y 35 solamente con registros. Los motivos principales más frecuentes de consulta fueron los siguientes: adecuación del esfuerzo terapéutico (46/42,6 %), compromiso neurológico grave (15/13,9 %), calidad de vida del paciente (11/10,2 %), conflictos entre el paciente, la familia y el sistema de salud (7/6,5 %), y rechazo del tratamiento por la familia (6/5,6 %). Se hallaron niveles altos de satisfacción (> 95 %) y niveles moderados de factibilidad (> 74 %) y efectividad (> 85 %). Solo en 50/108 casos (46,3 %) quedó registro en la historia clínica de la consulta al CEC y el 44 % de los profesionales opinó que la consulta tuvo un impacto positivo en la familia y en el paciente. Conclusiones. Los resultados contribuyeron a descubrir oportunidades de mejora, especialmente en la documentación y en la comunicación en el proceso de consulta.

Would primary care services benefit from the aid of a clinical ethics committee (CEC)? The implementation of CECs in primary care in four Norwegian municipalities was supported and their activities followed for 2.5 years. In this study, the CECs\' structure and activities are described, with special emphasis on what characterizes the cases they have discussed. In total, the four CECs discussed 54 cases from primary care services, with the four most common topics being patient autonomy, competence and coercion; professionalism; cooperation and disagreement with next of kin; and priority setting, resource use and quality. Nursing homes and home care were the primary care services most often involved. Next of kin were present in 10 case deliberations, whereas patients were never present. The investigation indicates that it might be feasible for new CECs to attain a high level of activity including case deliberations within the time frame. It also confirms that significant, characteristic and complex moral problems arise in primary care services.

How should clinical ethics support services such as clinical ethics committees (CECs) be implemented and evaluated? We argue that both the CEC itself and the implementation of the CEC should be considered as \'complex interventions\'.
We present a research project involving the implementation of CECs in community care in four Norwegian municipalities. We show that when both the CEC and its implementation are considered as complex interventions, important consequences follow - both for implementation and the study thereof. Emphasizing four such sets of consequences, we argue, first, that the complexity of the intervention necessitates small-scale testing before larger-scale implementation and testing is attempted; second, that it is necessary to theorize the intervention in sufficient depth; third, that the identification of casual connections charted in so-called logic models allows the identification of factors that are vital for the intervention to succeed and which must therefore be studied; fourth, that an important part of a feasibility study must be to identify and chart as many as possible of the causally important contextual factors.
The conceptualization of the implementation of a CEC as a complex intervention shapes the intervention and the way evaluation research should be performed, in several significant ways. We recommend that researchers consider whether a complex intervention approach is called for when studying CESS implementation and impact.

Case consultation performed by clinical ethics committees (CECs) is a complex activity which should be evaluated. Several evaluation studies have reported stakeholder satisfaction in single institutions. The present study was conducted nationwide and compares clinicians\' evaluations on a range of aspects with the CEC\'s own evaluation.
Prospective questionnaire study involving case consultations at 19 Norwegian CECs for 1 year, where consultations were evaluated by CECs and clinicians who had participated.
Evaluations of 64 case consultations were received. Cases were complex with multiple ethical problems intertwined. Clinicians rated the average CEC consult highly, being both satisfied with the process and perceiving it to be useful across a number of aspects. CEC evaluations corresponded well with those of clinicians in a large majority of cases. Having next of kin/patients present was experienced as predominantly positive, though practised by only half of the CECs. The educational function of the consult was evaluated more positively when the CEC used a systematic deliberation method.
CEC case consultation was found to be a useful service. The study is also a favourable evaluation of the Norwegian CEC system, implying that it is feasible to implement well-functioning CECs on a large scale. There are good reasons to involve the stakeholders in the consultations as a main rule.

To explore the objectives and outcomes most appropriate for evaluating clinical ethics support services (CESs) in the USA.
A three-round e-Delphi was sent to two professional medical ethics listservs (Medical College of Wisconsin-Bioethics and American Society for Bioethics and Humanities) as well as 19 individual experts. The survey originally contained 15 objectives and 9 outcomes. In round 1, participants were asked to validate the content of these lists. In round 2, we had 17 objectives and 10 outcomes, and participants were asked to rank them for appropriateness in a top 10 list of objectives and a top 5 list of outcomes.
Participants came to a high(at least 70%) level of agreement on seven objectives: mediate, educate, develop policy, improve the moral quality of a decision or action, counsel, create a moral space and manage moral distress. Participants came to a moderate (at least 51%) level of agreement on three objectives: empower, awareness of ethics and preventative ethics. Participants also came to a moderate (at least 51%) level of agreement on five outcomes: ethical justification, transformation of institution, improvement of quality of life, principled consensus and satisfaction with the expertise of a CES.
This e-Delphi identified 10 objectives and 5 outcomes that are a good starting point for developing outcome measures to evaluate CESs in the USA, while reminding us of the diversity of perspectives still evident in the field.

An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a range of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the implementation process of interdisciplinary ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. To our knowledge, this is the first study of ERG implementation to include both psychiatric and general hospital departments.
The implementation and evaluation strategies are inspired by action research, using a qualitative approach and systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers.
The implementation process was influenced by both structural factors and factors related to clinicians having different values, interests and experiences. Structural barriers and promotors in the process to implement ERG included the following sub-categories: Organizational factors, recruitment and training of ethics facilitators, the deliberation model, planning and recruitment of participants to the ERGs, the support of the ward managers and the project group. Barriers and promotors found among clinicians included the following sub-categories: Expectations and pre-understandings of ERGs, understandings of a physician\'s job, challenges experienced by ethics facilitators. At the end of the study, when it was decided that the ERGs should be continued, the implementation strategies were remodeled by the participants to meet new challenges.
The study of ERG implementation identified important structural and professional barriers and promotors that are likely to be relevant to anyone wanting to implement ethics support services across various types of healthcare services.

The French medical context is characterized by institutionalization of the ethical reflection in health care facilities and an important disparity between spaces of ethical reflection. In theory, the healthcare professional may mobilise an arsenal of resources to help him in his ethical reflection. But what happens in practice? We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 health-care professionals who did and did not have recourse to clinical ethical committees. We also implemented two focus groups with 18 professionals involved in various spaces of ethical reflection in order to let them debate about a better way to organize ethical reflection in their institutional contexts. The qualitative analysis allows to us to underline the coexistence of different conceptions of ethics among health care professionals. We also observed that the participants in our study shared the experience of ethically problematic situations as roadblocks in the process of communication and decision-making. We therefore report the factors which favour or inhibit the ethical course leading to the resolution or at the very least soothing of the situation at hand. Finally, we discuss methodological issues and underline the fact that while the patient is at the heart of the professional\'s ethical preoccupations, this does not imply that they are actors in decisions that concern them.

BACKGROUND: Latest research demonstrates a significant improvement in stress-related symptoms in psychological disorders as a result of exercise training (ET). Controlled clinical trials further validate the significance of ET by demonstrating lower salivary cortisol levels in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after intervention. A significant change in cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) levels can already be found after an 8-12-week ET program. The proposed study aims to investigate the impact of an 8-week ET on PTSD symptoms and changes in cortisol levels in a juvenile refugee sample from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) at an Ugandan refugee settlement. It is the first to implement an ET intervention in a resource-poor, post-conflict setting.
METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 198 adolescent participants aged 13-16 years from the DRC who, suffer from PTSD, will be investigated. The participants are based at the Nakivale refugee settlement, an official refugee camp in Uganda, Africa, which is among the largest in the world. The participants will be randomized into an Exercise Training (ET) group with a maximum heart rate (HRmax) of > 60%, an Alternative Intervention (AI) group with low-level exercises, and a Waiting-list Control (WC) group. After the 8-week interventional phase, changes in cortisol awakening response (CAR) and DHEA in the ET group that correspond to an improvement in PTSD symptoms are expected that remain at follow-up after 3 months.
CONCLUSIONS: To date, there is no controlled and reliable longitudinal study examining the effects of an ET program on symptom severity in individuals with PTSD that can be explained with a harmonization of cortisol secretion. The presented study design introduces an intervention that can be implemented with little expenditure. It aims to provide a promising low-threshold and cost-effective treatment approach for the application in resource-poor settings.
BACKGROUND: German Trials Register, ID: DRKS00014280 . Registered prospectively on 15 March 2018.

BACKGROUND: In the latter part of 2009, the Department of Health of the Philippines prohibited kidney transplantation with non-related kidney donors. Hence, the National Kidney and Transplant Institute created a Hospital Transplant Ethics Committee. This study describes directed non-related kidney donation at the National Kidney and Transplant Institute.
METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed the profiles of recipients and directed living non-related kidney transplant donors submitted to the Hospital Transplant Ethics Committee.
RESULTS: A total 74 recipients and donors were reviewed by the Hospital Transplant Ethics Committee in 2014. Donors initiated the talks about being a donor (75%) to repay the good deeds that were done by the recipient for them or their families; examples of which are: sometime in their lives they needed financial assistance for hospitalization for their relatives and it was the patient who paid the hospital bill; or because they pitied the recipient, whom they found to be a good person, thus they would want to give one of their kidneys. Seventy-four (100%) said that they were not expecting anything in return for this act but wanted to be of help to the recipient. Of these 74 cases, 70 cases (95%) were approved and the others were disapproved.
CONCLUSIONS: With a Hospital Transplant Ethics Committee in place, directed kidney donation is a valuable tool as an additional source of kidney donor without violating any ethical issues.