暂无摘要。

Speaking on behalf of others is no easy task. When 30 members of a psychiatric hospital\'s ethics committee rely on three of them to explain its functions and roles to neophytes, and to put into words what the committee represents in their eyes, the mission is a delicate one. We have to remain as faithful to our own thinking as we are to the spirit of the group. We will try to answer these questions as best we can, to shed light on the origins, missions and specific features of an ethics committee in a psychiatric hospital, without betraying our own thinking or that of our colleagues.

A Clinical ethics committee (Cec) has been implemented in an Oncology Research Institute in Northern Italy with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in addressing ethical issues related to clinical practice. This article describes the development and the activities carried out in 3 years since Cec\'s implementation. Our experience may increase knowledge of the role and opportunities of Cecs in the Italian context, and provide information on useful strategies for their regulation.

While principle-based ethics is well known and widely accepted in psychiatry, much less is known about how decisions are made in clinical practice, which case scenarios exist, and which challenges exist for decision-making. Protocols of the central ethics committee responsible for four psychiatric hospitals over 7 years (N=17) were analysed. While four cases concerned suicide risk in the case of intended hospital discharge, the vast majority (N=13) concerned questions of whether the responsible physician should or should not initiate the use of coercion in patients lacking mental capacity. The committee\'s recommendations were non-uniform. Forced feeding and electroconvulsive therapy were endorsed in each one case. In two cases of intermittent loss of capacity due to heavy drinking or intermittent severe suicidal ideation, a self-binding contract was recommended and the use of coercion was considered as justified for a very limited period. In all other cases, most of which involved involuntary treatment, the use of coercion was not endorsed. Without exception, the recommendations were accepted with relief by the physicians and their treatment teams, who feared liability in the event of harm to the patient. Eventually, a model of a decision algorithm was derived from the ethical arguments in the protocols.

Background Ethical conflicts generate difficulties in daily clinical activity. Which methods of ethical advice are most frequently used to resolve them among Spanish doctors has not been studied. The objective of this study is to describe what methods hospital internal medicine physicians in Spain use to resolve their ethical doubts and which they consider most useful. Design A cross-sectional observational study was conducted through a voluntary and anonymous survey and distributed through an ad hoc platform of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Measures We measured methods by which to resolve doubts, types of tools sought, frequency of consulting the Clinical Ethics Committees, and satisfaction with resolution of ethical issues. Results Of 261 internists surveyed, 86 per cent resolve their ethical doubts with assistance, the most frequently used method being consultation with colleagues (58.6 per cent), followed by using specific protocols or guides (11.8 per cent) and consultation with experts in bioethics (9.6 per cent). The most preferred tools are the creation of protocols (30.3 per cent) and the establishment of a consultant/expert in bioethics (27.8 per cent). Conclusions Internists in Spain usually seek assistance to resolve their ethical doubts. Consulting colleagues is the most frequently adopted method. The majority regard tools to resolve ethical conflicts as necessary, seeking above all protocols and consultants/experts in bioethics.

UNASSIGNED: Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) aim to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organizations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice. In 2020, a CEC was established in an Oncology Research Hospital in the North of Italy. This paper describes the development process and the activities performed 20 months from the CEC\'s implementation, to increase knowledge about CEC\'s implementation strategy.
METHODS: We collected quantitative data related to number and characteristics of CEC activities carried out from October 2020 to June 2022 using the CEC internal database. Data were reported descriptively and compared with data from the literature to provide a complete overview of the CEC\'s development and implementation process.
METHODS: The study has been conducted at the local health authority (LHA) of Reggio Emilia. It is a report of the activities provided by the CEC, where no HPs or patients were involved.
METHODS: The report is part of a larger study named EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC), which has been approved by the Local Ethics Committee (AUSLRE Protocollo n° 2022/0026554 of 24/02/2022). EvaCEC is also the first author\'s PhD project.
RESULTS: In total, the CEC performed 7 ethics consultations (EC), published three policies related to particular ethical questions of clinical and organizational practice, provided one educational online course on ethics consultation targeting employed HPs, and promoted a specific dissemination process among the different departments of the LHA. According to our results, the CEC widely fulfilled the standard threefold set of clinical ethics support services tasks (namely, ethics consultation, ethics education, and policy development), but further investigations are needed to evaluate the CEC\'s impact on clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings may increase knowledge regarding the composition, role, and tasks of a CEC in an Italian setting, informing future strategies and efforts to regulate these institutions officially.

This review describes the clinical ethics committees in Denmark. The clinical ethics committee is an interdisciplinary committee at a hospital intended to analyse ethically challenging situations and burdensome choices in patient care. The work in Danish KEKs takes place without formal organisation, in contrast to several other countries, where clinical ethics is regulated by law as research ethics is in Denmark.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

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.