Enacting Ethics: Bottom-up Involvement in Implementing Moral Case Deliberation

被引:0
作者
F. C. Weidema
A. C. Molewijk
G. A. M. Widdershoven
T. A. Abma
机构
[1] Free University Medical Centre,
[2] Department of Metamedics/GGNet Expertise Centre,undefined
[3] Free University Medical Centre,undefined
[4] Department of Metamedics/GGNet Expertise Centre,undefined
[5] Free University Medical Centre,undefined
[6] Department of Metamedics,undefined
来源
Health Care Analysis | 2012年 / 20卷
关键词
Work floor involvement; Clinical ethics; Co-ownership; Hidden voices; Implementation; Moral case deliberation; Participation; Responsive evaluation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In moral case deliberation (MCD), healthcare professionals meet to reflect upon their moral questions supported by a structured conversation method and non-directive conversation facilitator. An increasing number of Dutch healthcare institutions work with MCD to (1) deal with moral questions, (2) improve reflection skills, interdisciplinary cooperation and decision-making, and (3) develop policy. Despite positive evaluations of MCD, organization and implementation of MCD appears difficult, depending on individuals or external experts. Studies on MCD implementation processes have not yet been published. The aim of this study is to describe MCD implementation processes from the perspective of nurses who co-organize MCD meetings, so called ‘local coordinators’. Various qualitative methods were used within the framework of a responsive evaluation research design. The results demonstrate that local coordinators work hard on the pragmatic implementation of MCD. They do not emphasize the ethical and normative underpinnings of MCD, but create organizational conditions to foster a learning process, engagement and continuity. Local coordinators indicate MCD needs firm back-up from management regulations. These pragmatic action-oriented implementation strategies are as important as ideological reasons for MCD implementation. Advocates of clinical ethics support should pro-actively facilitate these strategies for both practical and ethical reasons.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 19
页数:18
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
Abma TA(2006)Moral deliberation in clinical psychiatric nursing practice Nursing Ethics 13 546-557
[2]  
Widdershoven GAM(2009)Good care in ongoing dialogue—Improving the quality of care through moral deliberation and responsive e evaluation Health Care Analysis 17 217-235
[3]  
Abma T(1969)Organization development—Objectives, assumptions, strategies California Management Review 12 23-34
[4]  
Molewijk B(1988)Stakeholder participation and utilization program evaluation Evaluation Review 12 91-116
[5]  
Widdershoven GAM(2001)Dialogue in evaluation; a relational perspective Evaluation 7 181-203
[6]  
French WL(2004)Where is the “up” in bottom-up reform? Educational Policy 18 527-561
[7]  
Greene J(2004)Towards a dialogical ethics of interprofessionalism Postgraduate Medical Journal 50 278-280
[8]  
Greene J(2004)Evaluation as practical hermeneutics—Or the long and stony road from a theory of practice to evaluation practice. Review essay: Thomas A. Schwandt ‘Evaluation practice reconsidered’ Forum Qualitative Socialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 5 29-65
[9]  
Honig MI(2008)Implementing moral case deliberation in Dutch healthcare—Improving moral competency of professionals and the quality of care Bioethica Forum 1 57-56
[10]  
Irvine R(2008)Implementing moral case deliberation in a psychiatric hospital—Process and outcome Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy 11 43-124