Table 1 Study inclusion criteria
From: Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes
Participants | Studies of patients, substitute decision-makers and/or family members, clinicians, healthcare staff and leaders who were involved in clinical ethics consultation(s) |
Intervention/Exposure | Studies of clinical ethics consultations in a healthcare setting. For the purposes of this review, clinical ethics consultations are defined by the following consensus statement: “a service provided by an individual consultant, team, or committee to address the ethical issues involved in a specific clinical case” [4] |
Comparator/Control | Studies of clinical ethics consultations including a comparison of standard care or active control were eligible for inclusion. Studies of clinical ethics consultations without a comparison group were also eligible |
Study designs | Studies of clinical ethics consultations, including randomized and non-randomized study designs, observational cohort studies, and qualitative studies to identify the outcomes reported in primary studies evaluating clinical ethics consultations. Opinion articles, case series and theoretical papers were not eligible for inclusion |
Context | Primary studies of clinical ethics consultations in a healthcare setting |
Outcomes | We aimed to identify the outcomes reported in evaluations of clinical ethics consultations. Based on our clinical experience and preliminary searches, we anticipated that outcomes would include assessments across the following domains: 1. Psychological factors: e.g., moral distress 2. Process factors: e.g., facilitating consensus 3. Healthcare utilization: e.g., number of days admitted to hospital 4. Clinical factors: e.g., documentation of goals of care in the electronic medical record 5. Quality: e.g., satisfaction (service quality) |