Research and hospital ethics committees in Switzerland

This paper presents the situation concerning research and hospital ethics committees (HEC) in Switzerland. In fact, HECs are almost nonexistent. All the so-called "Ethics Committees" deal with the review of research projects. As there is no legislation governing research on human subjects, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) has issued guidelines concerning research on human subjects and, more recently, guidelines concerning Research Ethics Committees (REC). There is a wide disparity in the composition and the functioning of these committees, however. Half of them belong to university hospitals. Six of them review two-thirds of all reviewed protocols. Many RECs function more as educational bodies to enhance the quality of submitted protocols than as committees having the task to control and prohibit particular research projects.     

A survey of New Jersey hospital ethics committees

A mail survey in 1988 of all 108 hospitals in New Jersey, and telephone follow-up in 1990, investigated the extent and structure of ethics committees with attention to the distinctions between prognosis, infant care review committees (ICRC) and general ethics committees (HECs). It disclosed that as of August, 1990, 74 hospitals had prognosis committees, 16 had ICRCs, and 64 had HECs. All types of committees tend to cluster in teaching hospitals and in hospitals with 200-500 beds. HECs average 13 members which include 4-5 physicians, 2-3 nurses, administrators and clergy (1-2 each), and fewer than one each for any other single profession. The primary purpose of HECS is to develop hospital ethics policy (96%), followed by educating hospital staff (80%), and providing counsel and support to physicians (67%). Case review with recommendation is provided by 54% of the HECs and 21% are involved in confirmation of prognosis.     

上海市医院伦理委员会机构建设与功能定位的现状分析

通过对上海市33所公立医院机构与医务人员的问卷调查，分析了解了医院伦理委员会机构建设与功能定位的现状。调查显示上海市医院伦理委员会组织与功能框架基本形成，但对于临床医疗服务项目的伦理审核和咨询以及对医务人员生命伦理的教育与培训功能需加强。     

行政伦理学在公立医院管理中的界说

行政伦理作为公共行政领域中伦理活动现象、伦理意识现象、伦理规范现象的综合表现,是伦理在公共行政领域的体现。以行政伦理学基本原理为理论依据,紧密结合当前公立医院行政管理实际,研究行政伦理学在公立医院管理领域应用的界定及范畴,并分析了医院管理中行政伦理与行政法规、行政职业道德的关系。     

Anthropometry in a children's hospital: a study of staff knowledge, use and quality of equipment

Aims: The aims of this study were to investigate the extent of documentation of anthropometric measurements in a children's hospital records, the response of ward staff to children with heights and weights below the 3rd centile, and the availability and accuracy of measuring equipment. Also to assess the nutritional knowledge of medical staff. Methods: A prospective study was carried out in which 305 medical case notes were reviewed for records of anthropometric measures and action taken. A survey was undertaken of the availability of anthropometric equipment and its accuracy assessed over a range of weights and heights. A sample of medical staff ( n =25) were interviewed about clinical nutrition. Results: Eighty-three per cent of the nursing notes and 13% of the medical notes contained records of weights, and 12% of the nursing notes and 8% of the medical notes contained records of heights. Only 40% of case notes had growth charts present, of which 54% had weights recorded and 32% had heights recorded. Surgical ward notes more frequently had inadequate records of weights, heights and growth charts than those of medical wards (surgical wards had 17% growth charts present compared to 65% growth charts on the medical wards). Overall, most wards and clinics had working and accurate weighing equipment (82% were accurate within 1%) and height equipment (43% were 100% accurate). Over 80% of ward staff appeared to have adequate knowledge of the theory behind anthropometry and recognized the value of growth charts. Conclusions: The weights and heights of children continue to be recorded inadequately in hospital notes, suggesting a need for in-service training and education on the importance of the nutritional assessment of paediatric patients.     

Planning for hospital ethics committees: Meeting the needs of the professional staff

Hospital ethics committees (HECs) have historically been instituted top-down, often ignoring the needs of the professionals and patients who might use their services. Seventy-four physicians and 123 nurses participated in a hospital-wide needs assessment designed to [1] identify their perceptions of the functions of the HEC, [2] determine which services and educational programs were most desired, and [3] explore which forums were most preferred for discussion of ethical problems. Results indicated that utilization of the HEC focused around five areas of concern: withdrawing/withholding treatment, rationing and control of health care, children's rights, role of the patient and family in decisionmaking, and disagreements about treatment. Physicians and nurses differed widely in their attitudes. Perceptions about the appropriate functions of the HEC strongly influenced decisions regarding which HEC services to use. Needs assessment can play an important role in developing HEC goals and designing programs that meet the needs of professionals.     

A survey of national ethics and bioethics committees

ObjectiveTo assess the current state of national ethics committees and the challenges they face.MethodsWe surveyed national ethics committees between 30 January and 21 February 2018.FindingsIn total, representatives of 87 of 146 national ethics committees (59.6%) participated. The 84 countries covered were in all World Bank income categories and all World Health Organization regions. Many national ethics committees lack resources and face challenges in several domains, like independence, funding or efficacy. Only 40.2% (35/87) of committees expressed no concerns about independence. Almost a quarter (21/87) of committees did not make any ethics recommendations to their governments in 2017, and the median number of reports, opinions or recommendations issued was only two per committee Seventy-two (82.7%) national ethics committees included a philosopher or a bioethicist.ConclusionNational ethics (or bioethics) committees provide recommendations and guidance to governments and the public, thereby ensuring that public policies are informed by ethical concerns. Although the task is seemingly straightforward, implementation reveals numerous difficulties. Particularly in times of great uncertainty, such as during the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, governments would be well advised to base their actions not only on technical considerations but also on the ethical guidance provided by a national ethics committee. We found that, if the advice of national ethics committees is to matter, they must be legally mandated, independent, diverse in membership, transparent and sufficiently funded to be effective and visible.     

上海市医院各类人员对伦理委员会功能与管理状况的综合评价

根据对上海市医院伦理委员会委员、医院管理者与一般医务人员的调查，发现上海市医院伦理委员会工作状况受到良好评价；建议应加强医院伦理委员会管理与工作绩效的研究，应建立医院伦理委员会的认证体系。     

Health care ethics committees in South Florida: A comparison and contrast

Special Article

Health care ethics committees in South Florida: A comparison and contrast     

Social work in the veterans administration hospital system: impact of the work

Social workers in the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital system are faced with numerous challenges to best address the ongoing health and mental health needs of those who serve in the military. Social workers in the VA system serve diverse roles on the multidisciplinary medical teams and mental health services and are integral to the VA hospital environment. Most social workers feel positive about their work and their contributions to the care of the military. Despite positive feelings about their work, social workers are also prone to compassion fatigue and burnout as the work, especially with returning veterans from Afghanistan/Iraq, often extracts a toll. This article details the experience of social workers in the VA hospital system; it describes the impact of the work on the social workers, noting levels of compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue, and burnout.     

A national survey of ethics committees in state mental hospitals

In June 1992, a national mail survey was directed to 204 state inpatient psychiatric institutions. This study was implemented following the 1992 Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) requirement that hospitals put in place some means with which to address ethical issues. The goals of the study were: 1. to examine state mental hospital characteristics and their response to the JCAHO requirements; 2. to describe healthcare ethics committee (HEC) composition, function, and role; 3. to study patient and family access to a HEC; and 4. to discover ethical issues most frequently addressed. The survey response rate was 71%. Of the 145 responders, 62 had HECs in place, and 53 were in the process of implementing HECs. There were no differences between JCAHO accredited institutions and non-accredited facilities with regard to having HECs. Physicians accounted for 22% of HEC membership, followed by nurses (15%), and administrators (12%). Twenty-six percent of facilities systematically notified patients about existence of the HEC; 71% of facilities had no patient request for HEC services in the last year. A patient's danger to others, and resuscitation policy were issues most frequently (23%) heard by HECs.     

Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical ethics committees: a systematic review

Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs), as distinct from Research Ethics Committees, were originally established with the aim of supporting healthcare professionals in managing controversial clinical ethical issues. However, it is still unclear whether they manage to accomplish this task and what is their impact on clinical practice. This systematic review aims to collect available assessments of CECs’ performance as reported in literature, in order to evaluate CECs’ effectiveness. We retrieved all literature published up to November 2019 in six databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Philosopher’s Index, Embase and Web of Science), following PRISMA guidelines. We included only articles specifically addressing CECs and providing any form of CECs performance assessment. Twenty-nine articles were included. Ethics consultation was the most evaluated of CECs’ functions. We did not find standardized tools for measuring CECs’ efficacy, but 33% of studies considered “user satisfaction” as an indicator, with 94% of them reporting an average positive perception of CECs’ impact. Changes in patient treatment and a decrease of moral distress in health personnel were reported as additional outcomes of ethics consultation. The highly diverse ways by which CECs carry out their activities make CECs’ evaluation difficult. The adoption of shared criteria would be desirable to provide a reliable answer to the question about their effectiveness. Nonetheless, in general both users and providers consider CECs as helpful, relevant to their work, able to improve the quality of care. Their main function is ethics consultation, while less attention seems to be devoted to bioethics education and policy formation.

     

Health research ethics review and needs of institutional ethics committees in Tanzania

This study was undertaken to describe the performance of health research ethics review procedures of six research centres in Tanzania. Data collection was done through a self-administered questionnaire and personal interviews. The results showed that there were on average 11 members (range = 8-14) in each Research Ethic Committee. However, female representation in the committees was low (15.2%). The largest proportion of the committee members was biomedical scientists (51.5%). Others included medical doctors (19.7%), social scientists (7.6%), laboratory technologists (10.6%), religious leaders (4.5%), statisticians (3.0%), teachers (1.5%) and lawyers (1.5). Committee members had different capacities to carry out review of research proposals (no capacity = 2%; limited capacity = 15%; moderate capacity = 20%; good capacity = 48%, excellent capacity = 13%). Only half of the respondents had prior ethics review training. Although the majority deemed that ethical guidelines were very important (66%), there were challenges in the use of ethical guidelines which included lack of awareness on the national accreditation mechanisms for ethics committee (59%). Adherence to ethical principles and regulations was influenced by being a scientist (OR = 42.47), being an employee of a professional organization (OR = 15.25), and having an interests in the use of ethical guidelines (OR = 10.85) These findings indicate the need for capacity strengthening (through training and resource support), inclusion of more female representation and other mandatory professions to the research ethics committees.