Reidar Pedersen1, Reidun Førde. 1. Seksjon for medisinsk etikk, Universitetet i Oslo, Postboks 1130 Blindern, 0318 Oslo. reidar.pedersen@medisin.uio.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics committees have recently been established in nearly all Norwegian hospital trusts. To assess the quality and function of the committees, a national research project was initiated in 2004. METHODS: A questionnaire on composition, resources, qualifications, tasks and routines was mailed to all committees. The response rate was 75% (21 out of 28). RESULTS: The committees are interdisciplinary and meet on average nine times per year. Only three (14%) chairs have been given dedicated time. Ten (48%) committees have separate budgets. Major tasks include getting the committee established, educating employees, deliberations (cases and more general questions), and guidelines. Main issues are withholding and withdrawing treatment, communication, patient autonomy, involuntary treatment, and priority setting. 16 committees have specific deliberation procedures. Minutes were taken in approximately half of the case deliberations. Systematic evaluation is scarce. INTERPRETATION: During a short period the committees have increased their competence and served over 2000 hospital employees, mainly through seminars. The committees probably already contribute to quality assurance in ethical decision making. The committees want more case consultations. Important challenges are obtaining sufficient resources, making the committees better known, and establishing routines.
BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics committees have recently been established in nearly all Norwegian hospital trusts. To assess the quality and function of the committees, a national research project was initiated in 2004. METHODS: A questionnaire on composition, resources, qualifications, tasks and routines was mailed to all committees. The response rate was 75% (21 out of 28). RESULTS: The committees are interdisciplinary and meet on average nine times per year. Only three (14%) chairs have been given dedicated time. Ten (48%) committees have separate budgets. Major tasks include getting the committee established, educating employees, deliberations (cases and more general questions), and guidelines. Main issues are withholding and withdrawing treatment, communication, patient autonomy, involuntary treatment, and priority setting. 16 committees have specific deliberation procedures. Minutes were taken in approximately half of the case deliberations. Systematic evaluation is scarce. INTERPRETATION: During a short period the committees have increased their competence and served over 2000 hospital employees, mainly through seminars. The committees probably already contribute to quality assurance in ethical decision making. The committees want more case consultations. Important challenges are obtaining sufficient resources, making the committees better known, and establishing routines.