Oral Presentations Abstracts: QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF CLINICAL ETHICS CONSULTATION. REFLECTION ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ETHICS CONSULTATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL

Stephan NADOLNY; Andre NOWAK; Nicolas HEIRICH; Jan SCHILDMANN

doi:10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.88

Authors

Stephan NADOLNY M.Sc., Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany. E-mail: stephan.nadolny@medizin.uni-halle.de
Andre NOWAK Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
Nicolas HEIRICH Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
Jan SCHILDMANN Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.88

Abstract

View of Volume 66, Special Issue, September 2021

Background. Clinical ethics consultation has been implemented in many health care institutions. Different methods exist for their evaluation. In this paper we present findings from an evaluation of 21 documentation conducted 2019-2020 by means of the Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool (ECQAT). The applicability of the instrument was analyzed based on a) duration of use, b) ease of use, c) comprehensibility of the items.

Results. On average, the analysis with the ECQAT takes 11 minutes per protocol. The greatest difficulties in applying the ECQAT arise a) in assessing the counselling-related information and b) in assessing the ethical analysis as well as the recommendations. Here, different demands on the level of detail of the information may lead to different assessments. Furthermore, the transitions of the ethical analysis and the recommendations, which are relevant for the assessment, could not be delimited exactly in parts of the protocols.

Discussion. The assessment of documentation represents a limited part of the quality of ethics consultation. In particular, the quality dimensions of the EQAT do not map communicative elements of process quality, which are essential components (if not the core) of ethics consultations. Moreover, the assessment is strongly depending on the format of the protocols, which, depending on the institution, range from a brief overview of the results to a detailed account. Even in light of aforementioned limitations the ECQAT provides an incentive to improve the process quality of (documented) ethics consultation.