CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 75Ethics in medical practiceEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics in Business and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ethics reflection groups in community health services: an evaluation study

Open access
Lillemoen, Lillian, Pedersen, Reidar·2015·BMC Medical Ethics
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0017-9PMC PMC4413993
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Systematic ethics support in community health services in Norway is in the initial phase. There are few evaluation studies about the significance of ethics reflection on care. The aim of this study was to evaluate systematic ethics reflection in groups in community health (including nursing homes and residency), - from the perspectives of employees participating in the groups, the group facilitators and the service managers. The reflection groups were implemented as part of a research and development project. METHODS: A mixed-methods design with qualitative focus group interviews, observations and written reports were used to evaluate. The study was conducted at two nursing homes, two home care districts and a residence for people with learning disabilities. Participants were employees, facilitators and service managers. The study was guided by ethical standard principles and was approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services. RESULTS: We found support for ethics reflection as a valuable measure to strengthen clinical practice. New and improved solutions, more cooperation between employees, and improved collaboration with patients and their families are some of the results. No negative experiences were found. Instead, the ethics reflection based on experiences and challenges in the workplace, was described as a win-win situation. The evaluation also revealed what is needed to succeed and useful tips for further development of ethics support in community health services. CONCLUSIONS: Ethics reflection groups focusing on ethical challenges from the participants' daily work were found to be significant for improved practice, collegial support and cooperation, personal and professional development among staff, facilitators and managers. Resources needed to succeed were managerial support, and anchoring ethics sessions in the routine of daily work.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12910-015-0017-9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • High staff turnover and frequent changes in management may limit opportunities for building trust through conversation.

    “Simultaneously, there is a risk that high staff turnover and frequent changes in management may limit opportunities for building trust through conversation [44].”

    From Ethics education to support ethical competence learning in healthcare: an integrative systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Results section (“Success factors and barriers”; page unavailable) describes a department with high staff turnover and management changes where reflection groups remained a fragile practice. The Results section (“Collegial support, team cooperation, and mutual learning”; page unavailable) says these conversations strengthened relationships, but the paper does not specifically say that turnover or management changes limited opportunities to build trust through conversation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Learning together about issues perceived as ethically problematic can strengthen both the individual and their relationships with colleagues.

    “Learning together about issues that are perceived as ethically problematic can strengthen both the individual and their relationships with their colleagues [44, 52].”

    From Ethics education to support ethical competence learning in healthcare: an integrative systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Reserving time for ethical reflection and systematically discussing ethical problems can make attitudes and approaches visible.

    “The visibility can also emerge by reserving time for ethical reflection and, in systematic forms, discussing ethical problems in everyday healthcare work [38, 43–45, 59, 70].”

    From Ethics education to support ethical competence learning in healthcare: an integrative systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Group discussions allow ethical problems to be viewed in different ways, which can lead to improvements in dealing with such problems.

    “With group discussions, ethical problems can be viewed in different ways [59], which in turn can lead to improvements in dealing with such problems [44].”

    From Ethics education to support ethical competence learning in healthcare: an integrative systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [44]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Lillemoen L, Pedersen R. Ethical challenges and how to develop ethics support in primary health care. Nurs Ethics. 2013;20(1):96–108. · DOI
  2. Gjerberg E, Forde R, Pedersen R, Bollig G. Ethical challenges in the provision of end-of-life care in Norwegian nursing homes. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(4):677–84. · DOI
  3. Suhonen R, Stolt M, Launis V, Leino-Kilpi H. Research on ethics in nursing care for older people: a literature review. Nurs Ethics. 2010;17(3):337–52. · DOI
  4. Jacobsen R, Sorli V. Dignity of older people in a nursing home: narratives of care providers. Nurs Ethics. 2010;17(3):289–300. · DOI
  5. Bollig G, Pedersen R, Førde R. Etikk I sykehjem og hjemmetjenester (Ethics in nursing homes and home care). Sykepleien Forskning. 2009;4(3):186–96. · DOI
  6. Rees J, King L, Schmitz K. Nurses’ perceptions of ethical issues in the care of older people. Nurs Ethics. 2009;17(3):436–52. · DOI
  7. Bolmsjo IA, Sandman L, Andersson E. Everyday ethics in the care of elderly people. Nurs Ethics. 2006;13(3):249–63. · DOI
  8. Racine E, Hayes K. The need for a clinical ethics service and its goals in a community healthcare service centre: a survey. J Med Ethics. 2006;32(10):564–6. · DOI
  9. Forde R, Pedersen R. Clinical ethics committees in Norway: what do they do, and does it make a difference? Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2011;20(3):389–95. · DOI
  10. Gaudine A, Thorne L, LeFort SM, Lamb M. Evolution of hospital clinical ethics committees in Canada. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(3):132–7. · DOI
  11. Molewijk AC, Abma T, Stolper M, Widdershoven G. Teaching ethics in the clinic. The theory and practice of moral case deliberation. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(2):120–4. · DOI
  12. Fox E, Myers S, Pearlman RA. Ethics consultation in United States hospitals: a national survey. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(2):13–25. · DOI
  13. Hurst SA, Reiter-Theil S, Perrier A, Forde R, Slowther AM, Pegoraro R, et al. Physicians’ access to ethics support services in four European countries. Health Care Anal. 2007;15(4):321–35. · DOI
  14. Slowther A, Johnston C, Goodall J, Hope T. Development of clinical ethics committees. BMJ. 2004;328(7445):950–2. · DOI
  15. Vollmann J, Burchardi N, Weidtmann A. Health care ethics committees in German university clinics. A survey of all medical directors and directors of nursing. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2004;129(22):1237–42. · DOI
  16. Dauwerse L, Weidema F, Abma T, Molewijk B. Implicit and explicit clinical ethics support in the Netherlands: a mixed methods overview study. HEC Forum. 2013;21:323–37.
  17. Dauwerse L, van der Dam S, Abma T. Morality in the mundane: Specific needs for ethics support in elderly care. Nurs Ethics. 2012;19(1):91–103. · DOI
  18. Van der Dam S, Molewijk B, Widdershoven GAM, Abma TA. Ethics support in institutional elderly care: a review of the literature. Medical Ethics. 2014;40:625–31. · DOI
  19. Söderhamn U, Kjøstvedt HT, Slettebø Å. Evaluation of ethical reflections in community healthcare: a mixed-methods study. Nurs Ethics. 2014:1-11. http://nej.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/01/0969733014524762 .
  20. Van der Dam S, Abma TA, Molewijk AC, Kardol MJM, Schols JMGA, Widdershoven GAM. Organizing moral case deliberation experiences in two Dutch nursing homes. Nurs Ethics. 2011;18(3):327–40. · DOI
  21. Van der Dam S, Schols JMGA, Kardol TJM, Molewijk BC, Widdershoven GAM, Abma TA. The discovery of deliberation. From ambiguity to appreciation through the learning process of doing moral case deliberation in Dutch elderly care. Soc Sci Med. 2013;83:125–32. · DOI
  22. Lillemoen L, Pedersen R. Ethics in primary health care Working systematically with ethics and developing competence in ethics. Clin Ethics. 2013;8(1):19–28. · DOI
  23. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc; 2009.
  24. Kondracki NL, Wellman NS, Amundson DR. Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2002;34(4):224–30. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Downe-Wamboldt B. Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int. 1992;13(3):313–21. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
  27. Pedersen R, Akre V, Førde R. Barriers and challenges in clinical ethics consultations: the experiences of nine clinical ethics committees. Bioethics. 2009;23(8):460–9. · DOI
  28. Førde R, Pedersen R, Akre V. Clinicians’ evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: a qualitative study. Med Health Care Philos. 2008;11:17–25. · DOI
  29. Argyris C, Schön DA. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1974.
  30. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Arena, Ashgate Publishing Limited Gower House; 1995.
  31. Van Haaften W. The concept of development. In: van Haaften W, Korthals M, Wren T, editors. Philosophy of development. Dordrechts: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1997. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lillemoen, L., & Pedersen, R.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Lillemoen, Lillian
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-04-17
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
25-25
ISSN
1472-6939 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12910-015-0017-9
PMC
PMC4413993
OpenAlex
W1994173863
Cited by
75
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4
FWCI
10.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
community-based care, nursing homes, home care, employee development, collegial support, management support, implementation evaluation
MeSH terms
Community Health Services, Cooperative Behavior, Group Processes, Health Personnel, Humans, Morals, Norway, Nursing Homes, Thinking, Group Homes, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review