Literature DB >> 21790694

Evidence - competence - discourse: the theoretical framework of the multi-centre clinical ethics support project METAP.

Stella Reiter-Theil1, Marcel Mertz, Jan Schürmann, Nicola Stingelin Giles, Barbara Meyer-Zehnder.   

Abstract

In this paper we assume that 'theory' is important for Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS). We will argue that the underlying implicit theory should be reflected. Moreover, we suggest that the theoretical components on which any clinical ethics support (CES) relies should be explicitly articulated in order to enhance the quality of CES. A theoretical framework appropriate for CES will be necessarily complex and should include ethical (both descriptive and normative), metaethical and organizational components. The various forms of CES that exist in North-America and in Europe show their underlying theory more or less explicitly, with most of them referring to some kind of theoretical components including 'how-to' questions (methodology), organizational issues (implementation), problem analysis (phenomenology or typology of problems), and related ethical issues such as end-of-life decisions (major ethical topics). In order to illustrate and explain the theoretical framework that we are suggesting for our own CES project METAP, we will outline this project which has been established in a multi-centre context in several healthcare institutions. We conceptualize three 'pillars' as the major components of our theoretical framework: (1) evidence, (2) competence, and (3) discourse. As a whole, the framework is aimed at developing a foundation of our CES project METAP. We conclude that this specific integration of theoretical components is a promising model for the fruitful further development of CES.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21790694     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01915.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioethics        ISSN: 0269-9702            Impact factor:   1.898


  12 in total

1.  Implicit and explicit clinical ethics support in The Netherlands: a mixed methods overview study.

Authors:  Linda Dauwerse; Froukje Weidema; Tineke Abma; Bert Molewijk; Guy Widdershoven
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2014-06

2.  [Clinical everyday ethics-support in handling moral distress? : Evaluation of an ethical decision-making model for interprofessional clinical teams].

Authors:  S Tanner; H Albisser Schleger; B Meyer-Zehnder; V Schnurrer; S Reiter-Theil; H Pargger
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2014-03-22       Impact factor: 0.840

3.  Prevalence and characteristics of moral case deliberation in Dutch health care.

Authors:  Linda Dauwerse; Margreet Stolper; Guy Widdershoven; Bert Molewijk
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2014-08

4.  [Ethical case discussions in the intensive care unit : from testing to routine].

Authors:  B Meyer-Zehnder; U Barandun Schäfer; H Albisser Schleger; S Reiter-Theil; H Pargger
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  Outcomes of moral case deliberation--the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD).

Authors:  Mia Svantesson; Jan Karlsson; Pierre Boitte; Jan Schildman; Linda Dauwerse; Guy Widdershoven; Reidar Pedersen; Martijn Huisman; Bert Molewijk
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  Ethical challenges in connection with the use of coercion: a focus group study of health care personnel in mental health care.

Authors:  Marit Helene Hem; Bert Molewijk; Reidar Pedersen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach.

Authors:  Marcel Mertz; Daniel Strech
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 7.327

8.  How to introduce medical ethics at the bedside - Factors influencing the implementation of an ethical decision-making model.

Authors:  Barbara Meyer-Zehnder; Heidi Albisser Schleger; Sabine Tanner; Valentin Schnurrer; Deborah R Vogt; Stella Reiter-Theil; Hans Pargger
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  Developing an ethics support tool for dealing with dilemmas around client autonomy based on moral case deliberations.

Authors:  L A Hartman; S Metselaar; A C Molewijk; H M Edelbroek; G A M Widdershoven
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Research across the disciplines: a road map for quality criteria in empirical ethics research.

Authors:  Marcel Mertz; Julia Inthorn; Günter Renz; Lillian Geza Rothenberger; Sabine Salloch; Jan Schildmann; Sabine Wöhlke; Silke Schicktanz
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.