What outcomes do Dutch healthcare professionals perceive as important before participation in moral case deliberation?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: There has been little attention paid to research on the outcomes of clinical ethics support (CES) or critical reflection on what constitutes a good CES outcome. Understanding how CES users perceive the importance of CES outcomes can contribute to a better understanding, use of and normative reflection on CES outcomes. Objective: To describe the perceptions of Dutch healthcare professionals on important outcomes of moral case deliberation (MCD), prior to MCD participation, and to compare results between respondents. Methods: This mixed-methods study used both the Euro-MCD instrument and semi-structured interviews. Healthcare professionals who were about to implement MCD were recruited from nursing homes, hospitals, psychiatry and mentally disabled care institutions. Results: 331 healthcare professionals completed the Euro-MCD instrument, 13 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The outcomes perceived as most important were ‘more open communication’, ‘better mutual understanding’, ‘concrete actions’, ‘see the situation from different perspectives’, ‘consensus on how to manage the situation’ and ‘find more courses of action’. Interviewees also perceived improving quality of care, professionalism and the organization as important. Women, nurses, managers and professionals in mentally disabled care rated outcomes more highly than other respondents. Conclusions: Dutch healthcare professionals perceived the MCD outcomes related to collaboration as most important. The empirical findings can contribute to shared ownership of MCD and a more specific use of MCD in different contexts. They can inform international comparative research on different CES types and contribute to normative discussions concerning CES outcomes. Future studies should reflect upon important MCD outcomes after having experienced MCD.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)246-257
Number of pages12
JournalBioethics
Volume31
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2017

Cite this

@article{1bb23d4c9a8e4fec8fd96c53c886ecb8,
title = "What outcomes do Dutch healthcare professionals perceive as important before participation in moral case deliberation?",
abstract = "Background: There has been little attention paid to research on the outcomes of clinical ethics support (CES) or critical reflection on what constitutes a good CES outcome. Understanding how CES users perceive the importance of CES outcomes can contribute to a better understanding, use of and normative reflection on CES outcomes. Objective: To describe the perceptions of Dutch healthcare professionals on important outcomes of moral case deliberation (MCD), prior to MCD participation, and to compare results between respondents. Methods: This mixed-methods study used both the Euro-MCD instrument and semi-structured interviews. Healthcare professionals who were about to implement MCD were recruited from nursing homes, hospitals, psychiatry and mentally disabled care institutions. Results: 331 healthcare professionals completed the Euro-MCD instrument, 13 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The outcomes perceived as most important were ‘more open communication’, ‘better mutual understanding’, ‘concrete actions’, ‘see the situation from different perspectives’, ‘consensus on how to manage the situation’ and ‘find more courses of action’. Interviewees also perceived improving quality of care, professionalism and the organization as important. Women, nurses, managers and professionals in mentally disabled care rated outcomes more highly than other respondents. Conclusions: Dutch healthcare professionals perceived the MCD outcomes related to collaboration as most important. The empirical findings can contribute to shared ownership of MCD and a more specific use of MCD in different contexts. They can inform international comparative research on different CES types and contribute to normative discussions concerning CES outcomes. Future studies should reflect upon important MCD outcomes after having experienced MCD.",
keywords = "Clinical ethics support, Moral case deliberation, Outcomes",
author = "{De Snoo-Trimp}, Janine and Guy Widdershoven and Mia Svantesson and {De Vet}, Riekie and Bert Molewijk",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/bioe.12354",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "246--257",
journal = "Bioethics",
issn = "0269-9702",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

What outcomes do Dutch healthcare professionals perceive as important before participation in moral case deliberation? / De Snoo-Trimp, Janine; Widdershoven, Guy; Svantesson, Mia; De Vet, Riekie; Molewijk, Bert.

In: Bioethics, Vol. 31, No. 4, 01.05.2017, p. 246-257.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - What outcomes do Dutch healthcare professionals perceive as important before participation in moral case deliberation?

AU - De Snoo-Trimp, Janine

AU - Widdershoven, Guy

AU - Svantesson, Mia

AU - De Vet, Riekie

AU - Molewijk, Bert

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Background: There has been little attention paid to research on the outcomes of clinical ethics support (CES) or critical reflection on what constitutes a good CES outcome. Understanding how CES users perceive the importance of CES outcomes can contribute to a better understanding, use of and normative reflection on CES outcomes. Objective: To describe the perceptions of Dutch healthcare professionals on important outcomes of moral case deliberation (MCD), prior to MCD participation, and to compare results between respondents. Methods: This mixed-methods study used both the Euro-MCD instrument and semi-structured interviews. Healthcare professionals who were about to implement MCD were recruited from nursing homes, hospitals, psychiatry and mentally disabled care institutions. Results: 331 healthcare professionals completed the Euro-MCD instrument, 13 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The outcomes perceived as most important were ‘more open communication’, ‘better mutual understanding’, ‘concrete actions’, ‘see the situation from different perspectives’, ‘consensus on how to manage the situation’ and ‘find more courses of action’. Interviewees also perceived improving quality of care, professionalism and the organization as important. Women, nurses, managers and professionals in mentally disabled care rated outcomes more highly than other respondents. Conclusions: Dutch healthcare professionals perceived the MCD outcomes related to collaboration as most important. The empirical findings can contribute to shared ownership of MCD and a more specific use of MCD in different contexts. They can inform international comparative research on different CES types and contribute to normative discussions concerning CES outcomes. Future studies should reflect upon important MCD outcomes after having experienced MCD.

AB - Background: There has been little attention paid to research on the outcomes of clinical ethics support (CES) or critical reflection on what constitutes a good CES outcome. Understanding how CES users perceive the importance of CES outcomes can contribute to a better understanding, use of and normative reflection on CES outcomes. Objective: To describe the perceptions of Dutch healthcare professionals on important outcomes of moral case deliberation (MCD), prior to MCD participation, and to compare results between respondents. Methods: This mixed-methods study used both the Euro-MCD instrument and semi-structured interviews. Healthcare professionals who were about to implement MCD were recruited from nursing homes, hospitals, psychiatry and mentally disabled care institutions. Results: 331 healthcare professionals completed the Euro-MCD instrument, 13 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The outcomes perceived as most important were ‘more open communication’, ‘better mutual understanding’, ‘concrete actions’, ‘see the situation from different perspectives’, ‘consensus on how to manage the situation’ and ‘find more courses of action’. Interviewees also perceived improving quality of care, professionalism and the organization as important. Women, nurses, managers and professionals in mentally disabled care rated outcomes more highly than other respondents. Conclusions: Dutch healthcare professionals perceived the MCD outcomes related to collaboration as most important. The empirical findings can contribute to shared ownership of MCD and a more specific use of MCD in different contexts. They can inform international comparative research on different CES types and contribute to normative discussions concerning CES outcomes. Future studies should reflect upon important MCD outcomes after having experienced MCD.

KW - Clinical ethics support

KW - Moral case deliberation

KW - Outcomes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017634203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/bioe.12354

DO - 10.1111/bioe.12354

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 246

EP - 257

JO - Bioethics

JF - Bioethics

SN - 0269-9702

IS - 4

ER -