Oral Presentations Abstracts: SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF TWO YEARS OF ETHICS REFLECTION GROUPS. CHANGES OVER TIME REGARDING EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES, USER INVOLVEMENT, TEAM COOPERATION AND THE HANDLING OF DISAGREEMENT

Bert  MOLEWIJK; Reidar PEDERSEN; Almar KOK; Reidun FØRDE; Olaf AASLAND

doi:10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.83

Authors

Bert MOLEWIJK Prof, Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Norway. E-mail: bert.molewijk@medisin.uio.no
Reidar PEDERSEN Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Norway
Almar KOK Amsterdam UMC, VUmc, The Netherlands
Reidun FØRDE Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Norway
Olaf AASLAND Amsterdam UMC, VUmc, The Netherlands

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.83

Abstract

View of Volume 66, Special Issue, September 2021

Background: Ethics reflection groups (ERG) or moral case deliberations (MCD) are increasingly used in health care as a form of clinical ethics support (CES). ERGs are often evaluated with a focus on evaluating ERG itself yet not on the impact of or change due to ERGs. Within a larger study implementation and impact of ERG was studied with use of various qualitative and qualitative research methodologies. In this presentation we present findings of the quantitative research.

Research question: Are there changes over time after two years of ERG regarding employees’ normative attitudes with respect to the use of coercion, user involvement during the use of coercion, team cooperation and the handling of disagreement?

Research methods: Repeated cross-sectional survey at seven wards within three different Norwegian mental health care institutions (T0-T1-T2).

Results: In total, 817 surveys were included in the analyses. Of these, only 7.6 % (N= 62) have responded at all three points in time, while 76.8 % (N= 628) responded only once. Over time, adjusted for ward and profession, respondents agreed less that coercion is a form of care or security. Furthermore, respondents thought they involved patients and their family significantly more often in situations of coercion and they reported that the constructive of disagreement within the team significantly improved. More frequent ERG participation seemed associated with a more critical attitude towards the use of coercion and higher scores for user involvement, team cooperation and the constructive handling of disagreement, yet differences between ERG participation were generally small in absolute terms.

Conclusion: Structural participation in ERG seems to contribute to changes in attitudes, user involvement and team cooperation. Studying changes over time and trying to find a relationship between CES interventions and outcome is difficult yet important and need to be further developed in future CES evaluation research.