Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review.
J Med Ethics. 2020 01; 46(1):36-42.JM

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Clinical ethics committees (CECs) support and enhance communication and complex decision making, educate healthcare professionals and the public on ethical matters and maintain standards of care. However, a consistent approach to training members of CECs is lacking. A systematic scoping review was conducted to evaluate prevailing CEC training curricula to guide the design of an evidence-based approach.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was used to evaluate prevailing accounts of CEC training published in six databases. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach was adopted to thematically analyse data across different healthcare and educational settings.

RESULTS

7370 abstracts were identified, 92 full-text articles were reviewed and 55 articles were thematically analysed to reveal four themes: the design, pedagogy, content and assessment of CEC curricula.

CONCLUSION

Few curricula employ consistent approaches to training. Many programmes fail to provide CEC trainees with sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to meet required competencies. Most programmes do not inculcate prevailing sociocultural, research, clinical and educational considerations into training processes nor provide longitudinal support for CEC trainees. Most CEC training programmes are not supported by host institutions threatening the sustainability of the programme and compromising effective assessment and longitudinal support of CEC trainees. While further reviews are required, this review underlines the need for host organisations to support and oversee a socioculturally appropriate ethically sensitive, clinically relevant longitudinal training, assessment and support process for CEC trainees if CECs are to meet their roles effectively.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore yunting.ong08@gmail.com. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Family Medicine Residency, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.Medical Library, National University of Singapore Libraries, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, Academic Palliative & End of Life Care Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

31527139

Citation

Ong, Yun Ting, et al. "Training Clinical Ethics Committee Members Between 1992 and 2017: Systematic Scoping Review." Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 46, no. 1, 2020, pp. 36-42.
Ong YT, Yoon NYS, Yap HW, et al. Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review. J Med Ethics. 2020;46(1):36-42.
Ong, Y. T., Yoon, N. Y. S., Yap, H. W., Lim, E. G., Tay, K. T., Toh, Y. P., Chin, A., & Radha Krishna, L. K. (2020). Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(1), 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105666
Ong YT, et al. Training Clinical Ethics Committee Members Between 1992 and 2017: Systematic Scoping Review. J Med Ethics. 2020;46(1):36-42. PubMed PMID: 31527139.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Training clinical ethics committee members between 1992 and 2017: systematic scoping review. AU - Ong,Yun Ting, AU - Yoon,Nicholas Yue Shuen, AU - Yap,Hong Wei, AU - Lim,Elijah Gin, AU - Tay,Kuang Teck, AU - Toh,Ying Pin, AU - Chin,Annelissa, AU - Radha Krishna,Lalit Kumar, Y1 - 2019/09/16/ PY - 2019/07/03/received PY - 2019/08/20/revised PY - 2019/08/25/accepted PY - 2019/9/19/pubmed PY - 2019/9/19/medline PY - 2019/9/19/entrez KW - clinical ethics committees KW - ethicist KW - ethics consultation KW - healthcare ethics committee KW - medical ethics SP - 36 EP - 42 JF - Journal of medical ethics JO - J Med Ethics VL - 46 IS - 1 N2 - INTRODUCTION: Clinical ethics committees (CECs) support and enhance communication and complex decision making, educate healthcare professionals and the public on ethical matters and maintain standards of care. However, a consistent approach to training members of CECs is lacking. A systematic scoping review was conducted to evaluate prevailing CEC training curricula to guide the design of an evidence-based approach. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was used to evaluate prevailing accounts of CEC training published in six databases. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach was adopted to thematically analyse data across different healthcare and educational settings. RESULTS: 7370 abstracts were identified, 92 full-text articles were reviewed and 55 articles were thematically analysed to reveal four themes: the design, pedagogy, content and assessment of CEC curricula. CONCLUSION: Few curricula employ consistent approaches to training. Many programmes fail to provide CEC trainees with sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to meet required competencies. Most programmes do not inculcate prevailing sociocultural, research, clinical and educational considerations into training processes nor provide longitudinal support for CEC trainees. Most CEC training programmes are not supported by host institutions threatening the sustainability of the programme and compromising effective assessment and longitudinal support of CEC trainees. While further reviews are required, this review underlines the need for host organisations to support and oversee a socioculturally appropriate ethically sensitive, clinically relevant longitudinal training, assessment and support process for CEC trainees if CECs are to meet their roles effectively. SN - 1473-4257 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/31527139/Training_clinical_ethics_committee_members_between_1992_and_2017:_systematic_scoping_review_ L2 - http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=31527139 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.