Marit Silén

What actions promote a positive ethical climate? A critical incident study of nurses’ perceptions

Few qualitative studies explore the phenomenon of positive ethical climate and what actions are perceived as promoting it. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore and describe actions that acute care ward nurses perceive as promoting a positive ethical climate. The critical incident technique was used. Interviews were conducted with 20 nurses at wards where the ethical climate was considered positive, according to a previous study. Meeting the needs of patients and next of kin in a considerate way, as well as receiving and giving support and information within the work group, promoted a positive ethical climate. Likewise, working as a team with a standard for behaviour within the work group promoted a positive ethical climate. Future research should investigate other conditions that might also promote a positive ethical climate.

Ethics rounds An appreciated form of ethics support

Background: Ethics rounds are one way to support healthcare personnel in handling ethically difficult situations. A previous study in the present project showed that ethics rounds did not result in significant changes in perceptions of how ethical issues were handled, that is, in the ethical climate. However, there was anecdotal evidence that the ethics rounds were viewed as a positive experience and that they stimulated ethical reflection. Aim: The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of how the ethics rounds were experienced and why the intervention in the form of ethics rounds did not succeed in improving the ethical climate for the staff. Research design: An exploratory and descriptive design with a qualitative approach was adopted, using individual interviews. Participants and research context: A total of 11 healthcare personnel, working in two different psychiatry outpatient clinics and with experience of participating in ethics rounds, were interviewed. Ethical considerations: The study was based on informed consent and was approved by one of the Swedish Regional Ethical Review Boards. Findings: The participants were generally positive about the ethics rounds. They had experienced changes by participating in the ethics rounds in the form of being able to see things from different perspectives as well as by gaining insight into ethical issues. However, these changes had not affected daily work. Discussion: A crucial question is whether or not increased reflection ability among the participants is a good enough outcome of ethics rounds and whether this result could have been measured in patient-related outcomes. Ethics rounds might foster cooperation among the staff and this, in turn, could influence patient care. Conclusion: By listening to others during ethics rounds, a person can learn to see things from a new angle. Participation in ethics rounds can also lead to better insight concerning ethical issues.

It’s not all about moral reasoning: Understanding the content of Moral Case Deliberation:

Background: Moral Case Deliberation is one form of clinical ethics support described as a facilitator-led collective moral reasoning by healthcare professionals on a concrete moral question connected to their practice. Evaluation research is needed, but, as human interaction is difficult to standardise, there is a need to capture the content beyond moral reasoning. This allows for a better understanding of Moral Case Deliberation, which may contribute to further development of valid outcome criteria and stimulate the normative discussion of what Moral Case Deliberation should contain. Objective: To explore and compare the content beyond moral reasoning in the dialogue in Moral Case Deliberation at Swedish workplaces. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was applied for analysing audio-recordings of 70 periodic Moral Case Deliberation meetings at 10 Swedish workplaces. Moral Case Deliberation facilitators and various healthcare professions participated, with registered nurses comprising the majority. Ethical considerations: No objection to the study was made by an Ethical Review Board. After oral and written information was provided, consent to be recorded was assumed by virtue of participation. Findings: Other than ‘moral reasoning’ (median (md): 45% of the spoken time), the Moral Case Deliberations consisted of ‘reflections on the psychosocial work environment’ to a varying extent (md: 29%). Additional content comprised ‘assumptions about the patient’s psychosocial situation’ (md: 6%), ‘facts about the patient’s situation’ (md: 5%), ‘concrete problem-solving’ (md: 6%) and ‘process’ (md: 3%). Conclusion: The findings suggest that a restorative function of staff’s wellbeing in Moral Case Deliberation is needed, as this might contribute to good patient care. This supports outcome criteria of improved emotional support, which may include relief of moral distress. However, facilitators need a strategy for how to proceed from the participants’ own emotional needs and to develop the use of their emotional knowing to focus on the ethically difficult patient situation.

Ethics rounds do not improve the handling of ethical issues by psychiatric staff

Abstract Background. One way to support healthcare staff in handling ethically difficult situations is through ethics rounds that consist of discussions based on clinical cases and are moderated by an ethicist. Previous research indicates that the handling of ethically difficult situations in the workplace might have changed after ethics rounds. This, in turn, would mean that the “ethical climate”, i.e. perceptions of how ethical issues are handled, would have changed. Aim. To investigate whether ethics rounds could improve the ethical climate perceived by staff working in psychiatry outpatient clinics. Methods. In this quasi-experimental study, six inter-professional ethics rounds led by a philosopher/ethicist were conducted at two psychiatry outpatient clinics. Changes in ethical climate were measured at these clinics as well as at two control clinics at baseline and after the intervention period using the instrument Hospital Ethical Climate Survey. Results. Within-groups comparisons of median sum scores of ethical climate showed that no statistically significant differences were found in the intervention group before or after the intervention period. The median sum scores for ethical climate were significantly higher, both at baseline and after the intervention period (P ≤ 0.001; P = 0.046), in the intervention group. Conclusions. Ethics rounds in psychiatric outpatient clinics did not result in significant changes in ethical climate. Outcomes of ethics rounds might, to a higher degree, be directed towards patient-related outcomes rather than towards the staffs working environment, as the questions brought up for discussion during the ethics rounds concerned patient-related issues.