Perception and valuing of clinical ethics issues by health professionals: an observational study in Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v41i5.14022Keywords:
Clinical ethics, Ethical problems, Ethical decision support in healthcare, Ethical consultantAbstract
Introduction: Clinical ethics involves identifying, analyzing, and resolving ethical problems that arise in healthcare practice. This study aimed to describe how health professionals identify and manage clinical ethics issues and to identify which tools and support structures they consider useful.
Methods: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted among health professionals working in primary care in the Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (ARSLVT). A one-stage, stratified, simple cluster random sampling method was used to select a total of 400 professionals. A self-administered questionnaire, previously applied in four European countries, was adapted and pilot-tested for this context.
Results: A total of 204 questionnaires were collected. Ninety-six percent of participants reported experience with at least one of seven types of ethical problems described. The most frequently identified issues were caring for adults whose decision-making capacity regarding their health was unknown or impaired (94%), and situations where resource management required professionals to make choices different from those they desired (81%). Only 16% of professionals had used any of the described ethical support resources. The most valued resources for resolving ethical conflicts were those providing help in clarifying ethical issues for themselves and other professionals involved (42%).
Conclusion: Ethical problems are an inherent part of the complexity of healthcare, highlighting the need for adequate ethical support in decision-making. However, the low use of such resources among professionals stands out as a key finding. This should be considered when designing organizational models for ethical decision support.
Downloads
References
1. Pose-Varela CA. El nacimiento de la ética clínica y el auge del eticista como consultor. Eidon. 2016;(46):34-69.
2. Sisk B, Dubois JM. The microethics of communication in health care: a new framework for the fast thinking of everyday clinical encounters. Hastings Cent Rep. 2022;52(4):34-43.
3. Gracia-Guillén D. La deliberación moral: el papel de las metodologías en ética clínica. In: Sarabia J, De los Reyes M, editors. Comités de ética asistencial. Madrid: Asociación de Bioética Fundamental y Clínica; 2000. p. 21-41.
4. Neves-Amado J. Problemas éticos na comunidade. Rev Ordem Enf. 2011;(37):27-30.
5. Simões JA. Ética e cuidados de saúde primários: um estudo descritivo em centros de saúde [dissertation]. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro; 2015. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10773/16978
6. Simões C, Araújo I, Araújo N, Fernandes F, Sousa L. Principais problemas éticos nos cuidados de saúde primários [Major ethical problems in primary health care]. Rev Enferm. 2020;43(1 Suppl):272-81. Portuguese
7. DuVal G, Clarridge B, Gensler G, Danis M. A national survey of U.S. internists' experiences with ethical dilemmas and ethics consultation. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(3):251-8.
8. Hurst SA, Perrier A, Pegoraro R, Reiter-Theil S, Forde R, Slowther AM, et al. Ethical difficulties in clinical practice: experiences of European doctors. J Med Ethics. 2007;33(1):51-7.
9. Lima AC, Morales DA, Zoboli EL, Sartório NA. Problemas éticos na atenção básica: a visão de enfermeiros e médicos [Ethical problems in primary health care: the perception of nurses and doctors]. Cogitare Enferm. 2009;14(2):294-303. Portuguese
10. Lillemoen L, Pedersen R. Ethical challenges and how to develop ethics support in primary health care. Nurs Ethics. 2013;20(1):96-108.
11. Bringedal B, Isaksson Rø K, Magelssen M, Førde R, Aasland OG. Between professional values, social regulations and patient preferences: medical doctors' perceptions of ethical dilemmas. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(4):239-43.
12. Ahmed S. Cluster sampling. The Johns Hopkins University; 2009.
13. Jones SR, Carley S, Harrison M. An introduction to power and sample size estimation. Emerg Med J. 2003;20(5):453-8.
14. Basílio N, Cardoso S, Nunes JM, Laranjo L, Antunes ML, Heleno B. Portuguese primary care physicians response rate in surveys: a systematic review. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2018;64(3):272-80.
15. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ. 2004;328(7451):1312-5.
16. Gracia-Guillén D, Cortina-Orts A. La cuestión del valor: discurso de recepción del académico de número. Real Academia de Ciencias Morales y Políticas; 2010. ISBN 9788472963320
17. Ribas-Ribas S. Estudio observacional sobre los comités de ética asistencial en Cataluña: el estudio CEA-CAT (1). Estructura y funcionamiento [Observational study of healthcare ethics committees in Catalonia: CEA-CAT study (1). Structure and functioning]. Med Clin (Barc). 2006;126(2):60-6. Spanish
18. Beca JP. Consultores en etica clinica y sus funciones. In: Feito-Grande L, Gracia-Guillén D, Sanchez-Gonzalez MA, editors. Bioética: el estado de la cuestión. Madrid: Triacastela; 2011. p. 31-9. ISBN 9788495840646
19. Herreros B. La consultoría ética, alternativa o complemento. Cuad Fundación Víctor Grifols i Lucas. 2017;46:53-62.
20. Kuczewski MG. When your healthcare ethics committee ‘fails to thrive’. HEC Forum. 1999;11(3):197-207.
21. American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. Core competences for health care ethics consultation. Glenview: ASBH; 1998.
22. Howe EG. Beyond the basics: more ways that ethics consultants can help patients. J Clin Ethics. 2022;33(1):3-12.
23. Islam R, Weir C, Del Fiol G. Clinical complexity in medicine: a measurement model of task and patient complexity. Methods Inf Med. 2016;55(1):14-22.
24. Nunes L. História das comissões de ética: conferência de abertura [Internet]. In: Reunião Nacional de Comissões de Ética, Hospital da Luz, 22 março 2013. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/4803
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors will assign to the RPMGF the sole right to publish and distribute the content of the manuscript specified in this declaration via physical, electronic, broadcasting or any other medium that may come into existence. They also grant the RPMGF the right to use and exploit this manuscript, in particular by assigning, selling or licensing its content. This permission is permanent and takes effect from the moment the manuscript is submitted, has the maximum duration allowed by applicable Portuguese or international law and is of worldwide scope. The authors further declare that this assignment is made free of charge. If the RPMGF informs the authors that it is not going to publish their manuscript, the exclusive assignment of rights ceases forthwith.
The authors authorise the RPMGF (or any entity it may appoint) to act on their behalf when it believes that copyright may have been infringed.
