How to succeed with ethics reflection groups in community healthcare? Professionals’ perceptions

Abstract

Background:

Healthcare personnel in the municipal healthcare systems experience many ethical challenges in their everyday work. In Norway, 243 municipalities participated in a national ethics project, aimed to increase ethical competence in municipal healthcare services. In this study, we wanted to map out what participants in ethics reflection groups experienced as promoters or as barriers to successful reflection.

Objectives:

To examine what the staff experience as promoters or as barriers to successful ethics reflection.

Research design:

The study has a qualitative design, where 56 participants in municipal healthcare participated in 10 different focus-group interviews.

Ethical considerations:

The data collection was based on the participants’ informed consent and approved by the Data Protection Official of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data.

Results:

The informants had different experiences from ethics reflection group. Nevertheless, we found that there were several factors that were consistently mentioned: competence, facilitator’s role, ethics reflection groups organizing, and organizational support were all experienced as promoters and as a significant effect on ethics reflection groups. The absence of such factors would constitute important barriers to successful ethics reflection.

Discussion:

The results are coincident with other studies, and indicate some conditions that may increase the possibility to succeed with ethics reflection groups. A systematic approach seems to be important, the systematics of the actual reflections, but also in the organization of ethics reflection group at the workplace. Community healthcare is characterized by organizational instabilities as many vacancies, high workloads, and lack of predictability. This can be a hinder for ethics reflection group.

Conclusion:

Both internal and external factors seem to influence the organization of ethics reflection group. The municipalities’ instabilities challenging this work, and perceived as a clear inhibitor for the development. The participants experienced that the facilitator is the most important success factor for establishing, carrying out, and to succeed with ethics reflection groups.

Keywords

Competence ethics facilitators ethics project ethics reflection organizational support systematic approach

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lillemoen

Pedersen

. Ethics reflection groups in community health services: an evaluation study. BMC Med Ethics 2015; 16(1): 25.

Lillemoen

Pedersen

. Ethical challenges and how to develop ethics support in primary health care. Nurs Ethics 2013; 20(1): 96–108.

Gjerberg

Førde

Pedersen

. Ethical challenges in the provision of end of life care in Norwegian nursing homes. Soc Sci Med 2010; 71: 677–684.

Bollig

Pedersen

Førde

. Ethics in nursing homes and home care. Sykepleien Forskning 2009; 4(3): 186–196.

Karlsen

Gjerberg

Førde

. Etikkarbeid i kommunal helse- og omsorgstjeneste - evaluering av etikkrefleksjonens innhold og betydning. Ethical work in municipal health care;- evaluation of the content and the impact of ethics reflection. Accepted for publication in Nordic Nursing Research. 2017.

Söderhamn

Kjøstvedt

Slettebø

. Evaluation of ethical reflections in community healthcare: a mixed-methods study. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(2): 194–204.

Gjerberg

Lillemoen

Dreyer

. Building ethical competence in Norwegian municipalities: What has been done and what has been sustainable? Etikk i praksis. Nord J Appl Ethics 2014; 8(2): 31–49.

Poikkeus

Numminen

Suhonen

. A mixed-method systematic review: support for ethical competence of nurses. J Adv Nurs 2014; 70(2): 256–271.

Magelssen

Gjerberg

Pedersen

. The Norwegian national project for ethics support in community health and care services. BMC Med Ethics 2016; 17: 70.

10.

Molewijk

Abma

Stolper

. Teaching ethics in the clinic. The theory and practice of moral case deliberation. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 120–124.

11.

Janssens

van Zadelhoff

van Loo

. Evaluation and perceived results of moral case deliberation: a mixed method study. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(8): 870–880.

12.

Bartholdson

Lützén

Blomgren

. Clarifying perspectives. Nurs Ethics 2016; 23(4): 421–431.

13.

Svantesson

Karlsson

Boitte

. Outcomes of moral case deliberation: the development of an evaluation instrument for clinical ethics support (the Euro-MCD). BMC Med Ethics 2014; 15: 30.

14.

Kalager

Førde

Pedersen

. Is the discussion of patient cases in clinical ethics-committees useful? Tidsskr Nor Legeforen 2011; 131(2): 118–121.

15.

Det kongelige helse- og omsorgsdepartement. Mestring, muligheter og mening. St.meld.nr 25 (2005–2006). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. Stortingsmelding nr. 25. Mestring, muligheter og mening, 2006.

16.

Tønnesen

Lillemoen

Gjerberg

. Ethics reflection groups: Just a “time out” or a learning arena? Etikk i praksis. Nord J Appl Ethics 2016; 10(1): 1–16.

17.

Magelssen

Gjerberg

Lillemoen

. Ethics support in community care makes a difference for practice. Nurs Ethics 2018; 25(2): 165–173.

18.

Svantesson

Silén

James

. It is not all about moral reasoning: understanding the content of moral case deliberation. Nurs Ethics 2018; 25(2): 212–229.

19.

Lillemoen

Syse

Pedersen

. Are clinical ethics committees in the municipal health and care services sustainable? Etikk i praksis. Nord J Appl Ethics 2016; 10(2): 127–140.

20.

Eide

Aadland

. Ethics handbook. Oslo: Kommuneforlaget, 2011.

21.

Ruyter

Førde

Solbakk

. Medical and health related ethics. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk, 2014.

22.

Malterud

. Qualitative methods in medical research. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2011.

23.

Malterud

. Focus groups as research method for medicine and health science. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2012.

24.

Dalland

. Method and task writing. 5. utgave. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk, 2012.

25.

Halkier

. Focus groups. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk, 2010.

26.

Kvale

Brinkmann

. The qualitative research interview. 2. utgave. Oslo: Gyldendal norsk forlag, 2009.

27.

Graneheim

Lindgren

Lundman

. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: a discussion paper. Nurse Educ Today 2017; 56: 29–34.

28.

Weidema

Molewijk

Kamsteeg

. Aims and harvest of moral case deliberation. Nurs Ethics 2013; 20(6): 617–631.

29.

Gjerberg

Amble

. Community health care sector as a learning organization - A research and development project?. Sykepleien Forskning 2009; 4(1): 36–42.

30.

Gjerberg

Amble

. Train the trainer – Train-the-trainer» - reflection groups in the care sector?. Sykepleien Forskning 2011; 6(2): 132–139.

31.

Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. The Coordination Reform. Proper treatment - at the right place and right time. 47 (2008–2009). Oslo: Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, 2009.

32.

Pedersen

Nortvedt

Nordhaug

. In quest of justice? Clinical prioritisation in healthcare for the aged. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 230–235.