Academic Journal
Case-Based Clinical Ethics Support: A Description and Normative Discussion of Methodological Issues from the Swedish Perspective
| Title: | Case-Based Clinical Ethics Support: A Description and Normative Discussion of Methodological Issues from the Swedish Perspective |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Pergert, Pernilla, Svantesson, Mia, Bartholdson, Cecilia, Bremer, Anders, Docent, 1957, Brännström, Margareta, Fischer Grönlund, Catarina, Juth, Niklas, Björk, Joar |
| Source: | HEC Forum. :1-16 |
| Subject Terms: | Clinical ethics support, Ethics case reflection, Mixed-method, Moral case deliberation, Normative discussion, Survey, Vårdvetenskap, Caring Science |
| Description: | Clinical Ethics Support (CES) includes various forms of systematic support to deal with ethical challenges in healthcare and case-based CES (C-CES) is used for CES in particular cases. The aim was to describe and normatively discuss organizational and methodological aspects of C-CES used in Swedish healthcare. A mixed-methods approach was used. A descriptive survey was answered regardingeight organizations on hospital, regional and national level, with large variations in the number of conducted C-CES activities. Data were compiled and frequencies calculated. Based on the survey results, normative questions were formulated. Six participants, with expertise of C-CES, participated in a normative group discussion. Field notes and transcribed data were analysed qualitatively. The top ranked goalof C-CES was “Supporting decision making”. Mainly prospective cases were used and C-CES was carried out as un-planned and pre-planned sessions. The normative results showed the importance of avoiding making C-CES unattractive to clinicians, for instance by keeping the time frame. The professional backgrounds of C-CES leaders varied greatly and arguments were provided for the facilitating role andthat C-CES leaders ought not facilitate where they have been clinically engaged. Identified challenges included variations in uptake of C-CES activities that don not mirror the ethical challenges of the context. The unfair uptake of C-CES can be compared with the uptake in Norway where there are legal requirements for CES. In this study patients and families were not reported to request or attend C-CES. Thus, further research and interventions are needed to ensure their representation in Swedish C-CES. |
| File Description: | |
| Access URL: | https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-141992 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-025-09566-5 |
| Database: | SwePub |
| ISSN: | 09562737 15728498 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10730-025-09566-5 |