Literature DB >> 31527139

Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review.

Yun Ting Ong1,2, Nicholas Yue Shuen Yoon3,2, Hong Wei Yap3,4, Elijah Gin Lim3,2, Kuang Teck Tay3,2, Ying Pin Toh5, Annelissa Chin6, Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna3,7.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Clinical ethics committees (CECs) support and enhance communication and complex decision making, educate healthcare professionals and the public on ethical matters and maintain standards of care. However, a consistent approach to training members of CECs is lacking. A systematic scoping review was conducted to evaluate prevailing CEC training curricula to guide the design of an evidence-based approach.
METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was used to evaluate prevailing accounts of CEC training published in six databases. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach was adopted to thematically analyse data across different healthcare and educational settings.
RESULTS: 7370 abstracts were identified, 92 full-text articles were reviewed and 55 articles were thematically analysed to reveal four themes: the design, pedagogy, content and assessment of CEC curricula.
CONCLUSION: Few curricula employ consistent approaches to training. Many programmes fail to provide CEC trainees with sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to meet required competencies. Most programmes do not inculcate prevailing sociocultural, research, clinical and educational considerations into training processes nor provide longitudinal support for CEC trainees. Most CEC training programmes are not supported by host institutions threatening the sustainability of the programme and compromising effective assessment and longitudinal support of CEC trainees. While further reviews are required, this review underlines the need for host organisations to support and oversee a socioculturally appropriate ethically sensitive, clinically relevant longitudinal training, assessment and support process for CEC trainees if CECs are to meet their roles effectively. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Keywords:  clinical ethics committees; ethicist; ethics consultation; healthcare ethics committee; medical ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31527139     DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105666

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  2 in total

Review 1.  Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes.

Authors:  Jennifer A H Bell; Marina Salis; Eryn Tong; Erica Nekolaichuk; Claudia Barned; Andria Bianchi; Daniel Z Buchman; Kevin Rodrigues; Ruby R Shanker; Ann M Heesters
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 2.834

2.  Clinical Ethics Committees in Africa: lost in the shadow of RECs/IRBs?

Authors:  Keymanthri Moodley; Siti Mukaumbya Kabanda; Leza Soldaat; Anita Kleinsmidt; Adetayo Emmanuel Obasa; Sharon Kling
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 2.652

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.