Implementing clinical ethics support services in psychiatry: A qualitative study

BackgroundDespite the ubiquity of ethical challenges in psychiatric practice, many psychiatric hospitals in Germany have not yet successfully established clinical ethics support services (CESS).AimOffering and evaluating a program that supports professionals in implementing CESS in psychiatric hospitals in Germany, and identifying which barriers and facilitators they encounter in the process.Research design, participants and research contextWe offered online implementation support to four psychiatric hospitals over a period of 14 months, which included regular support meetings with members of the hospitals' ethics committees. We conducted three focus groups with a total of 12 members of the respective clinical ethics committees at the beginning of the project, after 6 and after 12 months. Focus group transcripts and protocols of the support meetings were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.Ethical considerationsThe study was approved by the University's Research Ethics Committee.ResultsBarriers for implementation included structural factors, such as a lack of financial and time resources, a lack of knowledge about ethics consultation and its benefits in psychiatry, and difficulties distinguishing ethical questions from medical and legal questions or team conflicts. Participants assumed that specific psychiatric expertise was necessary to offer ethics consultation for psychiatric cases but generally found interdisciplinary and multiprofessional ethics committees helpful. Further helpful factors included the support of hospital management and strategies to increase awareness for ethics support services among different professional groups. Participants found the online support program helpful to discuss specific problems and identify next steps for implementation, and reported improvements in the implementation of CESS in the respective hospitals.ConclusionsThe provision of adequate personnel and time resources is essential to address structural implementation barriers. Our study demonstrates that establishing support programs on a broader scale is promising to improve the implementation of CESS in psychiatry.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nursing Ethics
Published
2025-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330251366595
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Ethics in medical practice
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.63

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Implementing clinical ethics support services in psychiatry: A qualitative study

Jakov Gather, Mirjam Faissner, Alfred Simon, Esther Braun et al.
2 citations
Nursing Ethics
Ethics in medical practice
5.63
article

Implementing clinical ethics support services in psychiatry: A qualitative study

Jakov Gather, Mirjam Faissner, Alfred Simon, Esther Braun, Susanne Markwort, Christin Hempeler, Katrin Radenbach, Fee Roth, Anna-Karina Schomburg, Thomas Pollmächer, Tanja M Müller
article en
2 citations

Abstract

BackgroundDespite the ubiquity of ethical challenges in psychiatric practice, many psychiatric hospitals in Germany have not yet successfully established clinical ethics support services (CESS).AimOffering and evaluating a program that supports professionals in implementing CESS in psychiatric hospitals in Germany, and identifying which barriers and facilitators they encounter in the process.Research design, participants and research contextWe offered online implementation support to four psychiatric hospitals over a period of 14 months, which included regular support meetings with members of the hospitals' ethics committees. We conducted three focus groups with a total of 12 members of the respective clinical ethics committees at the beginning of the project, after 6 and after 12 months. Focus group transcripts and protocols of the support meetings were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.Ethical considerationsThe study was approved by the University's Research Ethics Committee.ResultsBarriers for implementation included structural factors, such as a lack of financial and time resources, a lack of knowledge about ethics consultation and its benefits in psychiatry, and difficulties distinguishing ethical questions from medical and legal questions or team conflicts. Participants assumed that specific psychiatric expertise was necessary to offer ethics consultation for psychiatric cases but generally found interdisciplinary and multiprofessional ethics committees helpful. Further helpful factors included the support of hospital management and strategies to increase awareness for ethics support services among different professional groups. Participants found the online support program helpful to discuss specific problems and identify next steps for implementation, and reported improvements in the implementation of CESS in the respective hospitals.ConclusionsThe provision of adequate personnel and time resources is essential to address structural implementation barriers. Our study demonstrates that establishing support programs on a broader scale is promising to improve the implementation of CESS in psychiatry.

Nursing EthicsVol. 33(1)
University of Potsdam (DE), University of Siegen (DE), Society for Psychotherapy Research (US), Ethics and Public Policy Center (US), Institute of Medical Ethics (GB), Katholisches Klinikum Bochum (DE), United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (GB), University of Göttingen (DE), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE), Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Ethics in medical practice
5.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.