Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019
Background: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective me...
| Päätekijät: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Muut tekijät: | |
| Aineistotyyppi: | Journal Article |
| Kieli: | English |
| Julkaistu: |
2021
|
| Aiheet: | |
| Linkit: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/146274 |
| _version_ | 1826127260023783424 |
|---|---|
| author | Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen Ong, Yun Ting Yap, Hong Wei Tay, Kuang Teck Lim, Elijah Gin Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen Lim, Wei Qiang Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew Toh, Ying Pin Chiam, Min Mason, Stephen Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha |
| author2 | Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine) |
| author_facet | Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine) Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen Ong, Yun Ting Yap, Hong Wei Tay, Kuang Teck Lim, Elijah Gin Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen Lim, Wei Qiang Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew Toh, Ying Pin Chiam, Min Mason, Stephen Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha |
| author_sort | Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen |
| collection | NTU |
| description | Background: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons. Methods: Guided by Levac et al’s (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings. Results: Nine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified – the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations. Conclusion: This review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy. |
| first_indexed | 2024-10-01T07:05:58Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | ntu-10356/146274 |
| institution | Nanyang Technological University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-10-01T07:05:58Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | ntu-10356/1462742023-03-05T16:47:25Z Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen Ong, Yun Ting Yap, Hong Wei Tay, Kuang Teck Lim, Elijah Gin Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen Lim, Wei Qiang Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew Toh, Ying Pin Chiam, Min Mason, Stephen Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine) Science::Medicine Clinical Ethics Committees CECs Background: Amidst expanding roles in education and policy making, questions have been raised about the ability of Clinical Ethics Committees (CEC) s to carry out effective ethics consultations (CECons). However recent reviews of CECs suggest that there is no uniformity to CECons and no effective means of assessing the quality of CECons. To address this gap a systematic scoping review of prevailing tools used to assess CECons was performed to foreground and guide the design of a tool to evaluate the quality of CECons. Methods: Guided by Levac et al’s (2010) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, the research team performed independent literature reviews of accounts of assessments of CECons published in six databases. The included articles were independently analyzed using content and thematic analysis to enhance the validity of the findings. Results: Nine thousand sixty-six abstracts were identified, 617 full-text articles were reviewed, 104 articles were analyzed and four themes were identified – the purpose of the CECons evaluation, the various domains assessed, the methods of assessment used and the long-term impact of these evaluations. Conclusion: This review found prevailing assessments of CECons to be piecemeal due to variable goals, contextual factors and practical limitations. The diversity in domains assessed and tools used foregrounds the lack of minimum standards upheld to ensure baseline efficacy. Published version 2021-02-04T08:54:11Z 2021-02-04T08:54:11Z 2020 Journal Article Yoon, N. Y. S., Ong, Y. T., Yap, H. W., Tay, K. T., Lim, E. G., Cheong, C. W. S., . . . Krishna, L. K. R. (2020). Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 51-. doi:10.1186/s12910-020-00492-4 1472-6939 0000-0002-7350-8644 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/146274 10.1186/s12910-020-00492-4 32611436 2-s2.0-85087450117 1 21 en BMC Medical Ethics © 2020 The Author(s). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. application/pdf |
| spellingShingle | Science::Medicine Clinical Ethics Committees CECs Yoon, Nicholas Yue Shuen Ong, Yun Ting Yap, Hong Wei Tay, Kuang Teck Lim, Elijah Gin Cheong, Clarissa Wei Shuen Lim, Wei Qiang Chin, Annelissa Mien Chew Toh, Ying Pin Chiam, Min Mason, Stephen Krishna, Lalit Kumar Radha Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 |
| title | Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 |
| title_full | Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 |
| title_fullStr | Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 |
| title_short | Evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations : a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 |
| title_sort | evaluating assessment tools of the quality of clinical ethics consultations a systematic scoping review from 1992 to 2019 |
| topic | Science::Medicine Clinical Ethics Committees CECs |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/146274 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yoonnicholasyueshuen evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT ongyunting evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT yaphongwei evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT taykuangteck evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT limelijahgin evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT cheongclarissaweishuen evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT limweiqiang evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT chinannelissamienchew evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT tohyingpin evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT chiammin evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT masonstephen evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 AT krishnalalitkumarradha evaluatingassessmenttoolsofthequalityofclinicalethicsconsultationsasystematicscopingreviewfrom1992to2019 |