Dataset Information

How health care professionals confront and solve ethical dilemmas - a tale of two countries: Slovenia and Croatia.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To assess the differences in the way how Slovenian and Croatian health care professionals (HCPs) confront ethical dilemmas and perceive the role of hospital ethics committees (HECs).

Methods

This cross-sectional, survey-based study involved HCPs from three Slovenian and five Croatian university medical centers (UMC). The final sample sizes were 308 (244 or 79.2% women) for Slovenia and 485 (398 or 82.1% women) for Croatia.

Results

Compared with Croatian physicians, Slovenian physicians reported a higher share of ethical dilemmas regarding waiting periods for diagnostics or treatment, suboptimal working conditions due to interpersonal relationships in the ward, and end-of-life treatment withdrawal, and a lower share regarding access to palliative care and patient information protection. Compared with Croatian nurses, Slovenian nurses reported a lower share of ethical dilemmas regarding the distribution of limited resources, recognizing the patient's best interests, and access to palliative care. Compared with Croatian other HCPs, Slovenian other HCPs reported a lower burden of ethical dilemmas regarding waiting periods for diagnostics or treatment, distribution of limited resources, and access to palliative care. When encountering an ethical dilemma, all HCPs in both countries would first consult their colleagues. Slovenian and Croatian HCPs recognized the importance of the HECs to a similar extent, but viewed their role differently.

Conclusion

Croatian and Slovenian HCPs are confronted with different ethical dilemmas and perceive the role of HECs differently.

SUBMITTER: Grosek S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8107988 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How health care professionals confront and solve ethical dilemmas - a tale of two countries: Slovenia and Croatia.

Grosek Štefan Š Kučan Rok R Grošelj Jon J Oražem Miha M Grošelj Urh U Erčulj Vanja V Lajovic Jaro J Ivanc Blaž B Novak Milivoj M Prpić Massari Larisa L Mimica Matanović Suzana S Čerfalvi Vesna V Meštrović Julije J Borovečki Ana A

Croatian medical journal 20210401 2

<h4>Aim</h4>To assess the differences in the way how Slovenian and Croatian health care professionals (HCPs) confront ethical dilemmas and perceive the role of hospital ethics committees (HECs).<h4>Methods</h4>This cross-sectional, survey-based study involved HCPs from three Slovenian and five Croatian university medical centers (UMC). The final sample sizes were 308 (244 or 79.2% women) for Slovenia and 485 (398 or 82.1% women) for Croatia.<h4>Results</h4>Compared with Croatian physicians, Slov ...[more]

PMID: 33938651

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals (HCPs), patients and families are often faced with ethical dilemmas. The role of healthcare ethics committees (HECs) is to offer support in these situations.AimThe primary objective was to study how often HCPs encounter ethical dilemmas. The secondary objective was to identify the main types of ethical dilemmas encountered and how HCPs solve them.Subjects and methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, survey-based study among HCPs in 14 Slovenian hospitals. A questionnaire was designed and validated by HCPs who were selected by proportional stratified sampling. Data collection took place between April 2015 and April 2016.ResultsThe final sample size was n = 485 (385 or 79.4%, female). The response rates for HCPs working in secondary and tertiary level institutions were 45% and 51%, respectively. Three hundred and forty (70.4%) of 485 HCPs (very) frequently encountered ethical dilemmas. Frequent ethical dilemmas were waiting periods for diagnostics or treatment, suboptimal working conditions due to poor interpersonal relations on the ward, preserving patients' dignity, and relations between HCPs and patients. Physicians and nurses working in secondary level institutions, compared to their colleagues working in tertiary level institutions, more frequently encountered ethical dilemmas with respect to preserving patients' dignity, protecting patients' information, and relations between HCPs and patients. In terms of solutions, all HCPs most frequently discussed ethical dilemmas with co-workers (colleagues), and with the head of the department. According to HCPs, the most important role of HECs is staff education, followed by improving communication, and reviewing difficult ethical cases.ConclusionsWaiting periods for diagnostics and treatment and suboptimal working conditions due to poor interpersonal relations are considered to be among the most important ethical issues by HCPs in Slovenian hospitals. The most important role of HECs is staff education, improving communication, and reviewing difficult ethical cases.

Project description:BackgroundRadiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles.ResultsParticipants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier.ConclusionsMultiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Dataset Information

How health care professionals confront and solve ethical dilemmas - a tale of two countries: Slovenia and Croatia.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

How health care professionals confront and solve ethical dilemmas - a tale of two countries: Slovenia and Croatia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets