Literature DB >> 10124520

HECs: are they evaluating their performance?

R F Wilson1, M Neff-Smith, D Phillips, J C Fletcher.   

Abstract

Although the incidence and composition of HECs has been well characterized, little is known about how HECs assess their performance. In order to describe the incidence of HEC self-evaluation, the methods HECs use to evaluate their performance, and the characteristics of HECs that influence self-evaluation, we surveyed the readers of Hospital Ethics. 290 HECs in 45 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and three Canadian provinces, completed questionnaires. Of the 241 HECs included in the data analysis, 97.9% had performed some self-evaluation. Responding committees largely made formative rather than summative evaluations and appeared to evaluate performance in light of their own objectives rather than basing assessments on specific structural, process, and outcome measures of quality. Responding committees used certain evaluation criteria more extensively than others--among these, the number of participants and staff knowledge of the service provided--with the choice of criteria differing with the function being evaluated. Eight characteristics of HECs influenced the probability of self-evaluation, including age, number of beds and meetings, the existence of a mission statement, and a budget. The presence of certain characteristics made HECs six times more likely to evaluate their performance than HECs without the characteristic.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioethics and Professional Ethics; Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 10124520     DOI: 10.1007/BF01454915

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HEC Forum        ISSN: 0956-2737


  8 in total

1.  Ethics consultation: time to focus on patients.

Authors:  J A Tulsky; B Lo
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  Does legislating hospital ethics committees make a difference? A study of hospital ethics committees in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia.

Authors:  D E Hoffmann
Journal:  Law Med Health Care       Date:  1991 Spring-Summer

3.  Evaluating ethics committees.

Authors:  E Van Allen; D G Moldow; R Cranford
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1989 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.683

4.  Integrating ethics with quality assurance in long term care.

Authors:  M R Whiteneck
Journal:  QRB Qual Rev Bull       Date:  1988-05

5.  Ethics committees double since '83: survey.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hospitals       Date:  1985-11-01

6.  Patients' attitudes toward hospital ethics committees.

Authors:  S J Youngner; C Coulton; B W Juknialis; D L Jackson
Journal:  Law Med Health Care       Date:  1984-02

7.  Patient satisfaction surveys: an opportunity for total quality improvement.

Authors:  C W Nelson; J Niederberger
Journal:  Hosp Health Serv Adm       Date:  1990

8.  An ethics consultation service in a teaching hospital. Utilization and evaluation.

Authors:  J La Puma; C B Stocking; M D Silverstein; A DiMartini; M Siegler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988-08-12       Impact factor: 56.272

  8 in total
  4 in total

1.  Evaluation of healthcare ethics committees: the experience of an HEC in Spain.

Authors:  P H Robles
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  1999-09

2.  The evolving role of ethics advisory committees in VHA.

Authors:  W A Nelson; G S Wlody
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  1997-06

3.  Education of ethics committee members: experiences from Croatia.

Authors:  A Borovecki; H ten Have; S Oresković
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 4.  Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review.

Authors:  Chiara Crico; Virginia Sanchini; Paolo Giovanni Casali; Gabriella Pravettoni
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2020-11-21
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.