Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool: A Novel Method for Assessing the Quality of Ethics Case Consultations Based on Written Records"

被引:1
|
作者
Pearlman, Robert A. [1 ]
Foglia, Mary Beth [1 ]
Cohen, Jennifer H. [1 ]
Chanko, Barbara L. [1 ]
Berkowitz, Kenneth A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Ctr Eth Hlth Care, Dept Vet Affairs, Seattle, WA 98108 USA
来源
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS | 2016年 / 16卷 / 03期
关键词
clinical ethics; ethics consultation; organizational ethics; professional ethics;
D O I
10.1080/15265161.2016.1150532
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Although ethics consultation is offered as a clinical service in most hospitals in the United States, few valid and practical tools are available to evaluate, ensure, and improve ethics consultation quality. The quality of ethics consultation is important because poor quality ethics consultation can result in ethically inappropriate outcomes for patients, other stakeholders, or the health care system. To promote accountability for the quality of ethics consultation, we developed the Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool (ECQAT). ECQAT enables raters to assess the quality of ethics consultations based on the written record. Through rigorous development and preliminary testing, we identified key elements of a quality ethics consultation (ethics question, consultation-specific information, ethical analysis, and conclusions and/or recommendations), established scoring criteria, developed training guidelines, and designed a holistic assessment process. This article describes the development of the ECQAT, the resulting product, and recommended future testing and potential uses for the tool.
引用
收藏
页码:W1 / W2
页数:2
相关论文
共 7 条
  • [1] Response to open peer commentaries on "Strangers at the Beachside: Research Ethics Consultation"
    Cho, Mildred K.
    Tobin, Sara L.
    Greely, Henry T.
    McCormick, Jennifer
    Boyce, Angie
    Magnus, David
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2008, 8 (03): : W4 - W6
  • [2] Defining the Scope and Improving the Quality of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Response to Open Peer Commentaries About the National Collaborative
    Porter, Kathryn M.
    Danis, Marion
    Taylor, Holly A.
    Cho, Mildred K.
    Wilfond, Benjamin S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2018, 18 (02): : W13 - W15
  • [3] Response to open peer commentaries on "Ethics consultation in US hospitals: A national survey"
    Fox, Ellen
    Myers, Sarah
    Pearlman, Robert A.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2007, 7 (02): : W1 - W3
  • [4] Broadening the Scope of Health Care Ethics Consultation: A Response to Open Peer Commentaries on Patient and Family Description of Ethical Concerns
    Danis, Marion
    Povar, Gail
    Cho, Hae Lin
    Grady, Christine
    Tarzian, Anita
    Mangal, Jed
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2020, 20 (06): : W6 - W8
  • [5] Domains of quality for clinical ethics case consultation: A mixed-method systematic review
    Leslie L.
    Cherry R.F.
    Mulla A.
    Abbott J.
    Furfari K.
    Glover J.J.
    Harnke B.
    Wynia M.K.
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1)
  • [6] Islamic Goals for Clinical Treatment at the End of Life: The Concept of Accountability Before God (Taklif) Remains Useful: Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Ethical Obligations and Clinical Goals in End-of-Life Care: Deriving a Quality-of-Life Construct Based on the Islamic Concept of Accountability Before God (Taklif)"
    Padela, Aasim
    Mohiuddin, Afshan
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS, 2015, 15 (01): : W1 - W8