Clinical ethics consultation among Italian ethics committee: A mixed method study.

OBJECTIVE: The general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings.
METHODS: The study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants.
RESULTS: Review of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy. 71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents.
CONCLUSION: To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.

Introduction

The recent European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials [1] was developed with the objective of making clinical research more time and cost-efficient. Despite the narrow scope of the regulation, its effect is far-reaching and will likely affect aspects such as the role and function of ethics consultations, which currently safeguard the quality of patient care amid the rush towards scientific advancement. In March 31, 2017, the Italian National Committee on Bioethics (NBC) issued an opinion [2] emphasizing the importance of ECs’ role in the evaluation of ethical issues related to clinical practice, in order to protect and identify the persons’ values.

History of ethics committees at national and international level

Ethics Committees (ECs) are multidisciplinary bodies set up to evaluate biomedical practices concerning human studies and daily care from an ethical and scientific point of view [3]. They are called on “to deal with ethical issues that arise in patient care or research involving human subjects” [4]. There are two types of ECs: Research Ethics Committees (RECs) known as Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in the USA, and Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs), which are distinguished by the functions they perform [5,6]. The former are devoted to the evaluation of research protocols and protect the rights and welfare of human subjects whereas the latter deal with ethical issues related to daily clinical practice, bioethics training, and development of ethical guidelines.

In the late sixties the US National Institutes of Health established a policy that required ethical review of all research funded by the US Public Health Service [6]. The evidence and the debate of questionable practices in clinical studies involving human subjects led to congressional hearings in 1973 that resulted in the National Research Act in 1974 and the establishment of the current IRB system for oversight of human clinical research [6]. In the following years the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences was established with the aim of safeguarding those individuals taking part to clinical trials and defining guiding principles for biomedical research. The Commission decreed the mandatory requirement of submitting all research protocols involving human subjects to dedicated IRB for approval. At the same time the increasing concern on behalf of health care services and professionals on ethics-related issues led to the establishment of the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Behavioral Research. This resulted in the organization of the clinical ethics committee (CECs) aiming at managing ethical issues of clinical practice [4].

The organization of the ECs is quite different in Italy. The first EC was created in 1973 with the aim of ensuring that research for new medical treatments was "for a person and with a person, never on a person” [7]. However, it was only until 1998 that their activity was defined by a Ministerial Decree of March, 18 [8]; prior to that date all experimental studies related to the regulation of medicines for human use required review and approval by the Central Drug Committee. The most recent ECs regulation is the Ministerial Decree of February 8, 2013 [9]. This Decree defines ECs as "independent bodies responsible for ensuring the rights, safety and well-being of subjects enrolled in clinical studies”, providing a public guarantee of protection "by offering a scientific, ethical and methodological "evaluation of clinical trials”. According to this Decree, the ECs can also perform ethics consultation on issues related to both scientific and clinical activities if such functions are not already assigned to specific bodies. The aim is to protect the dignity and worth of the human person and promote human values (e.g., honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, discipline, fairness, justice, empathy, stewardship). ECs can propose training initiatives on bioethics for health professionals. Therefore, ethics consultation is an option whose organization is demanded on each EC and does not represent the ECs’ main function.

Recently, the EU has implemented its Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials [1] aiming to increase the efficiency and rapidity of the procedures for approving trials, simplify sponsors’ obligations and guarantee public access to the trial-related data. The regulations attribute to the ECs the freedom to organize their activities in accordance with each EU member-state legislation. De facto, Regulation 536/2014 has reduced the number of ECs, increasing the amount of work on clinical trials; the activity addressing ethical issues from every-day clinical practice is further sacrificed [10].

In the light of the mentioned EU Regulation, in 2017 the Italian National Committee on Bioethics (NBC) issued an opinion [2] on Italian ECs activities. Although the Italian law does not restrict ECs from research protocol evaluations, the NBC expressed concern that the function of handling ethics consultations might represent an excessively burdensome workload especially after the application of the EU Regulation 536/2014. The NBC emphasized the importance of ECs role in the evaluation of ethical aspects related to clinical practice, particularly their tasks beyond the evaluation of experimental study protocols. [2]

In conclusion, the NBC suggested in the review process following the recent EU regulation that CECs should be given legislative and administrative attention.

Only a few studies have investigated ethics consultation, especially among Italian ECs. Surveys performed in the US [11] and Europe [12] reported an infrequent use of ethics consultation services. An Italian survey in 2011 [13] examined whether the following activities were performed by Italian ECs: 1) promoting training for healthcare staff, patients and families; 2) advising on the care of individual patients upon a specific request; 3) assessing the ethical dimensions and feasibility of quality of care improvement programs; 4) providing guidelines on particularly relevant ethical issues.

Hence, the aims of the current study were:

to provide an updated overview of ethics consultation activity among Italian ECs, including data on number and contents of requests, and how they are carried out;

to explore the significant elements of ethics consultation through ECs key-informants.

The results of this study might be relevant for implementing or developing structured ethics consultation services.

Materials and methods

This is a mixed methods study that followed a quantitatively driven [14] sequential explanatory design [15, 16]. According to Creswell [14], mixed methods research is an approach that combines or associates both qualitative and quantitative data and can involve the use of both approaches in tandem. In particular, we followed sequential mixed methods procedures as we aimed to expand on the findings of a quantitative approach with a qualitative interview. The intent of this two-phase, sequential mixed methods study was to quantitatively describe ethics consultation activity among Italian ECs. We then further explored the information gathered in this first study phase by means of interviews. The qualitative phase was implemented to explore with ECs key-informants the significant elements of ethics consultation and to probe significant survey’s results with few participants. After having conducted a search of the 95 Italian ECs listed in the Italian Medicines Agency registry (December 2015), we obtained and analyzed all EC policies with the aim of collecting data about the role of ethics consultation according to each policy. We started the first phase of the mixed -method study by administering a questionnaire to all ECs to collect data on ethics consultation activity. Finally, we implemented the qualitative phase of the study by means of a semi-structured interview to key-informants.

Data collection and analysis

EC policies were obtained between May and September 2016, either downloaded from the ECs websites or obtained from their secretariats. In October 2016, the chief of ECs secretariats were sent two types of questionnaires to choose from (according to which applied): the first one, for ECs that provided ethics consultation according to their policy, concerned the number and types of consultations carried out during 2016; the second one, specific for ECs that did not include ethics consultation in their policy, concerned the presence of any other bodies called upon to provide ethics consultation. An e-mail reminder was sent in December 2016. Finally, the EC secretariats not responding to the e-mail were contacted and administered the questionnaire by phone. As far as the qualitative phase of the study, we planned an open-ended semi-structured interview (Table 1) with the aim of probing the information gathered through the questionnaires. The semi-structured interview was not previously tested.

Table 1

Interview guide.

Thematic area 1 –History and organization

Could you tell me the history of the ethics committee? When did it begin operating? How? Could you tell me how it is currently organized?

Thematic area 2 –Clinical ethics consultation

In reference to the ethics committee, in accordance with its policy, could you please tell me what are the topics of the requests submitted for consultation to the clinical ethics committee? Which departments do they come from most often?ORAccording to EC policy the clinical ethics consultation is not among the functions of the ethics committee. Could you tell me the reasons for this choice?Over the past three years, how many requests for clinical ethics consultation have you received?ORIn the past three years, have you ever received requests for clinical ethics consultation even though you were not among the functions of the ethics committee?

Thematic area 3—Procedures for clinical ethics consultation

What is the methodological approach you use to elaborate the clinical ethics response?Could you give me an example of a request for clinical ethics consultation that particularly impressed you?In your opinion, would it be useful for the ethics committee to provide clinical ethics consultations?

It started with ice-breaking questions about the EC history and organizations and proceeded with specific questions aimed at collecting data on the type of requests for clinical ethics consultation or the reasons why clinical ethics consultations were not among the functions of the EC and the procedures for clinical ethics consultation. Between December 2016 and March 2017 LDP conducted audio-recorded phone interviews with key informants of ECs, purposively selected according to the following characteristics: provision of ethics consultation by policy; function not included in the policy; independent structure providing ethics consultation function. We planned to interview eight key-informants belonging to EC that met these characteristics, with no replacement in case of refusal.

The semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim by LDP. We followed the Framework Analysis methodology [17] to inductively analyze the transcripts. Firstly, LDP and LG read the transcript of the first interview, writing down first impressions and analytical notes. Then they coded the texts line by line, highlighting actions, events, values, beliefs, emotions and impressions from the participants. LDP and LG analyzed themes independently and then reached the inter-coder agreement. Using first codes, authors developed an analytical framework grouping them into thematic categories. We then applied the framework systematically to all data to make recurrent themes emerge.

Ethics

This Research project did not include the collection, processing or analysis of personal or sensitive data of an interested party. Accordingly, as confirmed by the EC, the research did not require review or approval by the Ethics Committee. Nevertheless, specific participant protection procedures were adopted: researchers asked participants to agree to participate in the survey and interviews on a voluntary basis and to give their informed consent orally.

Results

Review of ethics committees activities

The investigation covered the policies of all 95 Italian ECs. The distribution of the ECs and the Clinical Centers by Region is reported in Table 2.

Table 2

Ethics committees and clinical centers by geographical regions (December 2015).

Italian regions	Ethics CommitteesN (%)	Clinical CentersN (%)
All Regions (N = 21)	95 (100)	1278 (100)
Emilia Romagna	9	106 (8.3)
Lombardia	21 (22.1)	164 (12,8)
Piemonte	6 (6.3)	81 (6.3)
Trento	1 (1.0)	17 (1.3)
Valle D’Aosta	1 (1.0)	1 (0.08)
Veneto	6 (6.3)	83 (6,5)
Friuli Venezia Giulia	3 (3.2)	24 (1.9)
Bolzano	1 (1.0)	9 (0.7)
Liguria	3 (3.2)	93 (7.3)
Umbria	1 (1.0)	32 (2.5)
Lazio	11 (11.6)	91 (7.1)
Toscana	4 (4.2)	123 (9.6)
Marche	1 (1.05)	32 (2.5)
Campania	7 (7.4)	122 (9.5)
Abruzzo	2 (2.1)	30 (2.3)
Molise	2 (2.1)	8 (0.6)
Puglia	5 (5.3)	69 (5.4)
Calabria	3 (3.2)	45 (3.5)
Sardegna	2 (2.1)	28 (2.2)
Sicilia	5 (5.3)	103 (8.1)
Basilicata	1 (1.1)	17 (1.3)

Most of the policies (n = 85, 89.5%) were available online, while those not available (n. = 10, 10.5%) were obtained from the EC’s administrative secretariats. Examination of policies showed that 69 ECs (72.6%) out of the total 95 provided ethics consultation service, with a percentage by geographic area ranging between 69 and 89% (Table 3).

Table 3

Ethics committee policy concerning ethics consultation, by geographic area.

Geographical area	All ECsN, (%)*	ECs providing ethics consultationN, (%)**
All	95 (100)	69 (72.63)
North	51 (53.7)	32 (69.2)
Centre	17 (17.9)	13 (76.5)
South	27 (28.4)	24 (88.9)

* percent of all ECs

** percent within geographic areas

Survey results

Seventy one of 95 ECs’ contacted secretariats (74.7%) responded to the e-mail, or the telephone reminder. The response rate did not differ significantly in the different geographical areas (north = 74.5%, center = 67.4% and south = 81.5%) (Table 4). Twenty-three (32.4%) did not provide ethics consultation. Forty-eight (67.6%) reported that they provided ethics consultation; the percentage by geographic area ranged between 54.5% and 77.3% (Table 4).

Table 4

Survey results by italian geographical area.

Geographical Area	ECs responding SurveyN, (%)	ECs providing ethics consultationN, (%)
All	71 (100)*	48 (67.6)**
North	38 (74.5)	25 (65.8)
Center	11 (67.4)	6 (54.5)
South	22 (81.5)	17 (77.3)

* percent of all responders

** ethics consultation by geographic areas

Regarding the 48 ECs that by policy provided ethics consultation, their activities during 2016 were the following:

25 ECs (52.1%) received no requests for ethics consultation in 2016. In the case of the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region: despite 3 regional ECs provided ethics consultation, the Region established (regional resolution of January 22, 2016) an “Ethics group for Clinical Practice” with the mission of ensuring the examination of ethical problems related to clinical and welfare activities [18].

23 ECs (47.9%) received ethics consultation requests in 2016, of which:

14 ECs received 1 or 2 requests alone. The specific issues for which ECs released an opinion concerned matters related to end-of-life, vasectomy, rare pediatric diseases, embryo cryopreservation, geriatrics, psychiatric diseases, palliative care, organ transplantation, and unblinding in a clinical trial;

1 EC drafted the guidelines and recommendations regarding patient participation in clinical trials to ensure privacy, professional and ethical issues" intended as research ethics consultation;

1 EC provided a large body of opinions regarding compassionate use of a drug treatment for candidate patients (according to the Ministerial Decree 08.05.2003), within a consultation they provided on research ethics. To this aim, an interdisciplinary team composed of a clinician, a pharmacist and a bioethicist evaluated the clinical conditions of patients who were candidate for compassionate use of a treatment and provided an assessment to be shared with the other members of the EC before the release of the authorization for compassionate use;

1 EC received 8 requests regarding the disposal of bio-banked cord blood specimens;

6 ECs were unable to provide the exact number of requests or any additional information.

Regarding the 23 ECs that did not perform ethics consultation by policy, 17 declared that they were supported by alternative body/structures. Six ECs were not supported by any alternative body/structure.

The alternative structures that dealt with ethics consultation in the different clinical centers were defined in different ways: Ethics Committee for Health Care, Ethics Group, and Ethics Committee for Clinical Practice. Their activities include: providing ethical advice, elaborating ethical guidelines, and promoting staff training on ethical issues and awareness of citizenship. These activities differed on a regional basis as follows :

The Veneto Region had six Ethics Committees for Clinical Practice active (Regional Resolution of 2004, [19];

In Toscana Region, the Regional Council Guidelines on the reorganisation of RECs had established the presence of Local ethics committees, which are exclusively responsible for the clinical ethics function;

The Val d'Aosta Region and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano established the “EC for health care activity” (Trento) and the “EC of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano”. Among their aims are the organization and dissemination of ethics consultation [20].

In the Emilia Romagna Region the Bioethics Committee of the University of Bologna did not provide ethics consultation, but dealt specifically with Research ethics consultation.

As explained above, there is no national law addressing or regulating the establishment of the CECs and these are regional or local initiatives without any clear connection or harmonization with other CECs.

Qualitative themes

In total, we conducted four semi-structured interviews with 4 of 8 profiles that we had identified as key-informants: a Chief of an EC; a Chief of a CEC, a responsible of an EC’s scientific secretariat, and a member of an EC with expertise in legal issues. The other contacted key-informants affirmed that they were unavailable for being interviewed.

The interviews lasted an average of 25 minutes. Two overarching themes emerged: the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to providing ethics consultation and the limitations of ethics consultation services.

Interdisciplinarity

Respondents agreed on the idea that a team with different professionals background should be in charge of ethics consultation in clinical practice. Interviewees stated that for cultural reasons, Italy–like many South European countries—prefers an interdisciplinary consultation over a single consultant, working with different professionals. In addition, they agreed that this activity should be separate from the institutional function of ECs.

Limits of ethics consultation services

All the interviewees stated that healthcare professional (HPs) often perform ethics consultation informally, during daily healthcare activity. Participants reported that HPs often think that they are able to handle ethical issues regarding both research and clinical practice.

Moreover, often lack specific training programs and information about the existing services and its activities.

Finally, it can be difficult to implement the services and evaluate them in terms of outcomes.

Discussion

The present study investigated the current activities and roles of ECs and supporting bodies in Italy. Previous efforts to describe the wok of ECs had been made a decade ago but with scarce participation and interest on behalf of the professionals invited to participate. In light of recent EU regulation and great advances in research and clinical practices in recent years, we felt the urge to have a clearer description of the field of clinical consultations and their potential (or lack of) usefulness. Overall, our study evidenced that despite over two-third of ECs being authorized to provide ethics consultation according to their institutional policy, our study showed that the majority of ECs received a very low number of consultation requests during the index calendar year (2016). Some ECs were unable to provide the precise number or specify the contents of the requests that they received.

Regarding the ECs that did not perform ethics consultation, the investigation identified a few Regional Ethics Committee for Clinical Practice (CECs) that had been established with the purpose of providing ethics consultation and ensuring the examination of ethical problems related to clinical and welfare activities. These, however, remain local initiatives, all of which established in Northern Italy (Veneto, Tuscany, Val d'Aosta, Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano, Emilia Romagna, and Lombardy). The interviewees also underlined the lack of information about ethics consultation service and activity.

Interestingly, the interviews and surveys allowed us to understand the definition of ethics consultations despite the fact that this was not a direct question in our survey or interviews. Definitions of ethics consultation provided by participants, were in agreement with the Ministerial Decree of February 8, 2013 as any activity concerning ethical issues related to scientific and clinical activities, aiming at protecting and promoting a persons’ value [9]. Similarly, Hurst [21] describes ethics consultation as the “services provided by ethics team or committee to address the ethical issues involved in a specific clinical case. The central purpose is to improve the process and outcomes of patient’s care by helping to identify, analyze, and resolve ethical problems”. None of the respondents questioned such a definition neither gave a different definition of ethics consultation.

In general, our data suggest the need to set up institutional bodies dedicated to ethical matters, composed by experts with a specific competence in ethical issues.

Finally, it is also important to note that our result findings highlight an increased participation by the Italian ECs compared to previous study [13]: our final response rate is 74,7%, nevertheless participation rate by ECs remain low. In addition, it was not easy to reach this result as illustrated by the flowchart, due to the difficulties in contacting the ECs’ administrative secretariats and collecting answers to the semi structure questionnaire. After one year from the beginning of the study, our response rate was 40% [22]. We were able to obtain a higher response rate following four reminders. The low response rate is in line with the studies previously cited [11,13].

Conclusions

The results of our research underline a general lack of information on ethics consultation service and activity carried out. In the light of the new EU Regulation, the significant reduction of the ECs in Italy and the qualitative and quantitative results of our study, we believe that there is a need to identify an alternative way to address ethical issues in clinical practice. As emerged from the qualitative interviews, the ethics consultation activity should be separate from the institutional function of ECs. A possible solution could be the implementation of a Clinical Ethics Consultation Service with the aim of enhancing the capacity of HPs to deal with ethical issues and reduce decisional conflicts in clinical practice.

A recent Cochrane Systematic Review [23] shows that the evidence available from the studies conducted on this issue remains poor. We therefore expect further research to assess and identify the characteristics and outcomes of ethics consultation service.

26 Jul 2019

Submitted filename: Response letter_ 25-07-2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-21084

Clinical ethics consultation among Italian Ethics committee: a mixed method study

PLOS ONE

Dear Ludovica De Panfilis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 02 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kelly Holloway

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. The most significant revision required is that you clarify how your data suggests the "need to set up institutional bodies dedicated to ethical matters, composed by experts with a specific competence in ethical issues." Currently your data does not seem to show this. You need to more clearly establish a connection between your findings and this conclusion.

2. Please rewrite the abstract:

-Spell out acronyms like REC and EC.

-Can you clarify what this means? "Review of the policies promoted by ECs showed that 72,6 % (n=69) of all the ECs (N=95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy." The meaning is unclear. What policy are you referring to?

-Can you clarify this sentence? "To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and NOT WELL? understood by users." It seems that you are arguing that it is underappreciated and it IS understood. I don't think this is what you mean.

-This sentence does not make sense: "Despite research THAT? clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated. [END THE SENTENCE HERE.THE REST IS REDUNDANT] in perspective of application of new regulations."

3. Please clarify why it is worth mentioning the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region in the reporting of the ECs with a policy on ethics consultation.

4. Please rewrite this sentence on line 268: "The 23 ECs that did not perform ethics consultation by policy declared that they were supported by alternative structures, except for six ECs that did not provide ethic consultation and were not supported by any alternative body/structure."

Do you mean 17 ECs that did not perform ethics consultation by policy declared that they were supported by alternative structures??

5. The following section of the discussion is unclear: "Interestingly, the interviews and surveys led us to cover [NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY COVER] the definition of consultations despite THE FACT THAT? this was a direct question IN our survey or interviews. DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS CONSULTATION provided by participants, WERE in agreement with the Ministerial Decree of February 8, 2013 as any activity concerning ethical issues related to scientific and clinical activities, aiming at protecting and promoting a persons’ value (9)."

It is not clear what you mean by including this section on the definition of ethics consultation. How is this related to the research question/ study design?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would consider the manuscript just sufficient and even if not completely well done it is acceptable for publication.

About the survey through the use of questionnaires, few results are not so clear and precise like, as reported at Tab.2 (line 220), the definition of Clinical centers and the number of 6 for Ethics Committese in the Veneto Region (in fact in the Veneto Region the Ethics Committes are more than 6: the authors must clarify if they take in account only the RECs or also the CECs).

The number of interviews is very low and therefore it is difficult to have significant conclusions.

It should be better explained the use of the concept of the Clinical Ethics Consultation and in this context it is important to quote the recent Italian publications (as the Declaration of Trento).

About the references, ref. nr. 3, line 384; ref. nr. 16, line 410-411, are not completed and quotations for the US Belmont Report and the Italian literature about clinical ethics consultation and ethics committees are missing.

Reviewer #2: To be of interest to a broader audience, it is suggested that the authors delineate the rationale for their work more clearly. They have assumed the reader has detailed knowledge of the EU regulations (this reviewer has read this particular EU regulation 536/2014) but does not draw any parallels between that regulation and the current submitted work. For example the justification for this work seems to be that the "its effect is far reaching and will likely effect aspects such as the role and function of ethics consultations". This is not sufficient most readers and certainly would be important to justify the current work to draw out the section in the current regulation that is pertinent. The impact, importance and why this work is of interest to a broader audience is lacking upfront. The survey methods, and survey itself and reporting are done are done with rigor and high quality.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Oct 2019

Dear Editor,

Please find enclosed the article: Clinical ethics consultation among Italian Ethics committee: a mixed method study that we are resubmitting for publication in PLOS ONE after the invitation for a resubmission by the Editor.

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We also greatly appreciate the reviewers for their complimentary comments and suggestions.

Together with the other co-authors, we have discussed the comments you reported in your e-mail, and revised the article accordingly.

Please find attached a point-by-point response to reviewer’s concerns.

We hope that you find our responses satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

26 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-21084R1

Clinical ethics consultation among Italian Ethics committee: a mixed method study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. De Panfilis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kelly Holloway

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Unfortunately the revised paper does not address the central concern expressed in the most recent revision; that the data does not support the conclusion.

The data shows:

-According to a review of policies, 72.6% of ECs provide ethics consultation (And 52.1% of them received no requests for ethics consultation in 2016).

-According to the survey, 67.6% ECs provide ethics consultation.

-Qualitative interviews with four people indicated that the team should be interdisciplinary, and that HPs perform ethics consultation informally. Further, "HPs could not benefit from specific training programs, and often lack information about the existing services and its activities."

I fail to see how this data supports the idea that there should be institutional bodies composed by experts who a specific competence in ethical issues. Who are these experts? Where have they been identified in the study?

The authors must significantly revise the conclusion in order to reflect the findings. As it stands, the data does not support “the need to set up institutional bodies dedicated to ethical matters, composed by experts with a specific competence in ethical issues.”

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

29 Nov 2019

Dear Editor, we discuss the concern expressed in the recent revision and agree with your comment.

The quantitative and qualitative results of our research underline, in particular a general lack of information on ethics consultation service and activity carried out.

We believe that there is a need for further research to assess the characteristics and outcomes of an ethics consultation service.

Please, see the conclusion section revised accordingly to your comment.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 Dec 2019

Clinical ethics consultation among Italian Ethics committee: a mixed method study

PONE-D-19-21084R2

Dear Dr. De Panfilis,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Kelly Holloway

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

18 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-21084R2

Clinical ethics consultation among Italian Ethics committee: a mixed method study

Dear Dr. De Panfilis:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kelly Holloway

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE