MHA 601 Principles in Healthcare Administration Week 5 Assignment
vroins
patient_culture.pdf
Article
Ethical challenges and how to develop ethics support in primary health care
Lillian Lillemoen University of Oslo, Norway; Østfold University College, Norway
Reidar Pedersen University of Oslo, Norway
Abstract Ethics support in primary health care has been sparser than in hospitals, the need for ethics support is probably no less. We have, however, limited knowledge about how to develop ethics support that responds to primary health-care workers’ needs. In this article, we present a survey with a mixture of closed- and open-ended questions concerning: How frequent and how distressed various types of ethical challenges make the primary health-care workers feel, how important they think it is to deal with these chal- lenges better and what kind of ethics support they want. Five primary health-care institutions participated. Ethical challenges seem to be prominent and common. Most frequently, the participants experienced ethical challenges related to scarce resources and lack of knowledge and skills. Furthermore, ethical challenges related to communication and decision making were common. The participants welcomed ethics support responding to their challenges and being integrated in their daily practices.
Keywords Ethical challenges, ethics support, primary health care
Introduction
Ethical challenges are prevalent in health-care services, and there is a growing interest in the field of health-care
ethics. Clinical ethics support has been established in the United States, Canada, Australia and in quite a few
European countries over the last decades, for example, through ethics committees, smaller teams, ethics con-
sultants or moral deliberation groups. 1–8
Ethics support services often include ethics education for the employ-
ees, the development of policies and guidelines and case consultation or deliberation (typically when health-care
professionals face specific moral dilemmas). However, the development of ethics support seems to have been
much sparser in primary health-care services compared to the hospitals and more specialized medical care. 9
Empirical studies from nursing homes and in other types of primary health-care services indicate that
ethical challenges are prevalent, significant and complex and that there is a need for ethics support and
structured ethical reflection. 10–15
Many nursing home patients have multiple and severe diseases, while the
available resources, for example, funding and professional training, are generally more limited. 9,16
Not
Corresponding author: Lillian Lillemoen, Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, PO Box 1130, Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway.
Email: [email protected]
Nursing Ethics 20(1) 96–108
ª The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav 10.1177/0969733012452687
nej.sagepub.com
surprisingly, inadequate treatment, or not being able to attend to and care for the patient in a proper way due to lack
of resources, is reported as one of the most prominent ethical challenges in nursing homes and home care ser-
vices. 9,11,16
Reduced decision-making capacity represents another central ethical challenge to clinicians’ attempt
to respect the patients’ autonomy, 9,17
and various kinds of restraints are frequently used in nursing homes. 18
Finally,
end-of-life care represents many prominent ethical challenges and sometimes conflicts. 11,19
Informal discussions
among colleagues seem to be the primary way clinicians solve ethical challenges in their everyday practice. 9
Thus, there seems to be a great need to develop ethical competency and to deal more systematically with
ethical challenges also in primary health care. However, to adequately meet this need, to reach out to those
most affected by the ethical challenges and to make an impact on the health care provided, what should we
do and how should we do it?
Recent literature reviews indicate that quite a few empirical studies have been published on ethics in pri-
mary health care. 9,10,13
However, most previous studies focus on selected issues (e.g. autonomy) or selected
informants (e.g. nurses) within a particular context (e.g. nursing homes or end-of-life care). Furthermore,
there is a lack of systematic evaluation of the various measures taken to deal more systematically with ethi-
cal challenges in primary health care. Thus, there is a need for further research to implement ethics support
and systematic reflection on a broader basis in primary health care, both concerning what the most promi-
nent ethical challenges are and how to deal with such challenges.
In Norway, specialized health services are provided in hospitals (including in-patient and out-patient
departments), organized as health trusts. Local and less specialized health and welfare services are municipal
health services, such as nursing homes, home care and residential settings for persons with learning disabil-
ities. Norway has a population of about 5 million people. The country is divided into 435 municipalities. There
are 4 regional health authorities and 23 health trusts. This article presents the results from a study on ethical
challenges and the need for ethics support, in which all types of employees working in various types of pri-
mary health-care services in a Norwegian municipality participated with their own opinions and experiences.
Methods
In 2007, we were asked to assist one urban municipality located in the South-Eastern part of Norway in
developing ethics support services for two nursing homes, two home care units and one residential care
home for people with learning disabilities.
We knew that there were many distressing ethical challenges the health-care workers were facing and
that there was a need to do something about this. However, we also knew that many clinical ethics support
services in the hospitals report that they are relatively rarely used in specific cases and struggle to become
visible and integrated in the hospital. 1,7,20–22
Thus, we wondered, could there be other or supplementary
ways to develop ethics support and competency? To avoid developing ethics support that did not respond
to the employees’ needs and that was too far removed from their practices, we wanted to include all the
employees and to answer some of the following basic questions:
1. How frequent and prominent are various types of ethical challenges in primary health care?
2. How important do the primary health-care workers think it is to deal better with these challenges and
what kind of ethics support do they want?
Since there were several hundred employees to be included, we decided to answer these questions through
a survey, using a questionnaire. However, due to the nature of the questions and the topic (ethics) to be studied,
we considered a mixture of open-ended and closed-ended questions to be most fruitful. Although there are
various previous empirical studies exploring similar questions through questionnaires, validated question-
naires are lacking and most questionnaires have been developed for different or narrower purposes.
Lillemoen and Pedersen 97
97
Thus, we decided to develop a new questionnaire for this study, while using already developed question-
naires as an inspiration. Furthermore, we conducted two focus group interviews in the participating primary
health-care services; one group interview with directors and leaders/management, and the other group inter-
view with key members of the staff whom we knew had a special interest in ethics. The dialogue of these
two groups, focusing on the participants’ experiences, thoughts and views on ethics, ethical challenges and
the need for ethics support, was valuable in the development of the questionnaire used in this study.
A preliminary version of the questionnaire was discussed and modified in collaboration with other
researchers in the field, to assess face validity. Then, a pilot survey consisting of a total of 25 employees,
5 from each of the 5 participating health-care services, was carried out. Their answers indicated that the
questionnaire was understandable for the participants, and the pilot testing led to only minor changes in the
questionnaire. For example, in the pilot questionnaire, at the end of Question 1, there was an open-ended
question asking if the participants had other ethical challenges than what was listed through the closed-
ended questions. Yet, none of the participants in the pilot study reported that they had other ethical chal-
lenges. Furthermore, the following questions (Questions 2 and 3) also gave the participants the possibility
to describe any ethical challenges in their own words. Thus, the question at the end of Question 1 was
removed.
The developed questionnaire included the following three main areas (an English version of the
questionnaire available on request):
1. Ethical challenges in the respondents’ work day (Questions 1–4), types, frequency and how distressed
the ethical challenges make the respondents feel. The participants were asked to answer closed-ended
questions with various response options (Question 1), to describe (in their own words) situations they
had experienced as ethically challenging and to describe the most difficult ethical challenges in their
work day. Furthermore, they were asked to assess the extent to which these challenges were experi-
enced as a burden in their work day.
2. An assessment of how these challenges are dealt with, and the respondents’ skills to classify, think
through, discuss and deal with ethical challenges (closed-ended questions; Questions 5–7).
3. How important the respondents think it is to deal more systematically with ethical challenges and to
increase knowledge and skills in ethics, and how this should be done (both closed-ended and open-
ended questions; Questions 8 and 9).
Finally, we also asked for some general information about the respondents (age, gender, profession, etc.;
Question 10).
When studying ethical challenges, a methodological challenge is that there is no universally accepted
definition of ‘ethics’ or ‘ethical challenges’. At the same time, most, if not all, health-care employees have
some pre-understanding of what ethics and moral dilemmas are. However, our experience with ethics-
teaching and research in health care is that this pre-understanding is often implicit and that it may vary con-
siderably. This also seems to be the case among ‘experts’ on health-care ethics. Nevertheless, how ethics is
defined can influence the results of this kind of study and be of importance when deciding what the tasks of
ethics support services should be, how such services should function and in deciding what ethical compe-
tence and expertise are. 23
In this study, we decided not to choose one theory or definition of ethics and rather asked the respondents
to describe ethical challenges in their own words so as to avoid defining ethics in advance and thereby
excluding the participants’ views on what ethical challenges are. Furthermore, we attempted to formulate
the closed-ended question in a similar way to how health-care personnel often express their ethical
challenges (as expressed in previous research and the focus groups) rather than using more academic or the-
oretical ways of describing or defining ethical challenges. However, to give the participants some idea in
98 Nursing Ethics 20(1)
98
advance of what we wanted to study, and to avoid confusion, we included the following description of the
purpose of the study and of ‘ethical challenges’ in the invitation letter that was given to the participants
along with the questionnaire:
An important aim of this project is to strengthen the employees’ and leaders’ abilities to reflect upon and deal
with ethical challenges in their work day. Ethical challenges may arise when we cannot do what we think ought
to be done, or when there is doubt or disagreement about what is right or wrong.
Participants
The participants included health-care workers, nursing assistants, auxiliary nurses, care workers, laundry
workers, doctors, kitchen staff, mercantile staff, nurses, physiotherapists, service managers, social educa-
tors and social workers, as well as department managers. All employees within the participating health-care
service sites (two nursing homes, two home care units and one residential care home for people with learn-
ing disability) were invited to participate in this study, including permanent as well as hired staff. No exclu-
sion criteria were used. In total, 323 questionnaires were distributed.
Data collections
In June and July 2008, the questionnaire was distributed to the participants within the five health-care ser-
vices participating in this study. Questionnaires were distributed during staff meetings or delivered to the
employees by the local project collaborators. Survey return as well as reminder of questionnaire submission
was used. In September 2008, data collection was completed.
Ethical considerations
In the invitation letter and orally when possible, all participants were informed that participation was vol-
untary. The questionnaires were returned to the researchers in sealed envelopes, and confidentiality and
anonymity were ensured.
Approval for the study was obtained from the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD). NSD is
the Data Protection Official for Research for all the Norwegian universities, university colleges and several
hospitals and research institutes. This means that the Data Inspectorate has delegated part of its responsi-
bility to NSD in relation to the Personal Data Act and Health Register Act.
The Regional Research Ethics Committee in Norway must pre-approve medical and health science
research projects, general and thematic research biobanks and exemptions from the duty of confidentiality
for any other type of research. Since we did not collect any identifiable patient information, and all the par-
ticipants were health-care personnel and not patients, the study was exempted from the Regional Research
Ethics Committee requirement of study’s pre-approval.
Analyses
The results from the survey are mainly described by descriptive statistics. To compare the answers from
various groups of respondents, we used cross tabs and chi-square tests. The following groups of respondents
were compared: Those working closer to the patient (nursing assistant, auxiliary nurse, care worker/health-
care worker, doctor, nurse, department manager/middle manager, occupational therapist/physiotherapist,
social worker and social educator) versus those working further away from the patient (service manager,
mercantile staff, cleaner/laundry worker and kitchen staff). Furthermore, the biggest professional groups
were compared (nurses vs. auxiliary nurses and nursing assistants); the latter two groups were clustered.
Lillemoen and Pedersen 99
99
SPSS, version 16, was used to do the statistical analyses. Data from the pilot study are included in the
analysed material. In the presentation of the responses, some of the response options are clustered, for
instance ‘daily’ and ‘weekly’ are clustered to ‘frequently’, while ‘less often’ and ‘never’ are clustered to
‘less than weekly’. Furthermore, some of the questions and answers were largely overlapping (Questions
1j and 1l and Questions 1i and 1k). Thus, the responses to these questions are also clustered in the presenta-
tion. In the clustering and recoding of the answers on these overlapping questions (i.e. Questions 1j and 1l
and Questions 1i and 1k), we did the following: If a respondent answered ‘frequently’ to at least one of these
questions, the clustered answer was coded as ‘frequently’. If the respondent answered ‘less than weekly’ on
one of these questions and not relevant to the other questions, the clustered answer was coded as ‘less than
weekly’.
A qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the respondents’ answers to the open-ended questions.
The process included interpretations, extracting meaningful units, condensation and creating themes
and subthemes. To avoid haphazard interpretations, both authors first analysed the qualitative material
on their own and then discussed what the most adequate themes and subthemes were and how to
group the various meaningful units according to these themes. 24
In the process of naming the themes,
emphasis was on preserving the content of the respondents’ descriptions. Many of the respondents
answered quite similarly to two of the open-ended questions (i.e. Questions 2 and 3), and many others
answered only one of these questions. Thus, the answers on these two questions were clustered and
analysed together.
Results
In total, 159 of 323 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 49%).
How frequent and prominent are various types of ethical challenges in primary health care?
Eighty-two per cent of the respondents reported that they frequently (i.e. daily or weekly) experience at least
one of the ethical challenges listed in the questionnaire in their work. Ethical challenges associated with
inadequate attention to the patients’ needs for social contact, physical activity or self-expression and ethical
challenges related to information, communication and shared decision making were experienced most
frequently (see Table 1). Ethical challenges related to different cultures, use of coercion, confidentiality,
palliative treatment and life-prolonging treatment were experienced less frequently.
Those working closest to the patient generally experienced the various ethical challenges more often than
those working further away from the patient (see Table 2). The differences between the largest professional
groups, nurses versus auxiliary nurses and nursing assistants (the latter two groups were clustered), were
smaller (see Table 3). However, when looking at ethical challenges related to unsatisfactory care, the nurses
tended to experience these kinds of ethical dilemmas more often. No significant differences were found
when comparing health-care workers in institutions and home care services.
When asked to describe the most difficult ethical challenges in their own words, the most frequent chal-
lenges reappeared as important main themes (lack of resources and undermining of professional responsi-
bility). In Table 4, condensed examples of common answers are presented according to main themes and
subthemes. Coercion and end-of-life ethics also appeared to represent particular ethical challenges for
many of the respondents. Many of the described ethical challenges indicate that the staff, the patients and
the relatives are faced with very serious and complex ethical challenges. Some of the situations described
may also represent violation of the law, such as illegal use of coercion due to lack of resources.
The majority of the respondents (65%) experience ethical challenges as a strain in their working day to some degree or to a large/very large degree. Those working closer to the patient and the nurses
100 Nursing Ethics 20(1)
100
experienced the ethical challenges as more burdensome (p ¼ 0.017 and 0.063, respectively (chi- square test)).
How are ethical challenges dealt with?
Informal discussions among colleagues are the most common way of dealing with ethical challenges (86% answer that this ‘fits well’ or ‘to some degree’). Also various types of regular meetings in the units are used
to discuss these kinds of challenges (74% answer that this ‘fits well’ or ‘to some degree’). However, quite a few respondents also report that ethical challenges are often not discussed, left to the individual or that their
opinion has little importance (58%, 65% and 51%, respectively, answer that this ‘fits well’ or ‘to some degree’).
Table 1. Ethical challenges in the respondents’ work day (N ¼ 148–155).
How often in your work day do you experience ethical challenges or conflicts associated with:
Frequently (%)
Less than weekly (%)
Not relevant (%)
Patients’ needs for social contact, physical activity or self-expression are not adequately met (Questions 1j and 1l)
62 36 2
Information and communication with patients and relatives (Question 1a) 53 41 5 How many patients and relatives should decide (Question 1b) 53 38 9 Being unable to carry out your job in a satisfactory way (Question 1h) 48 50 2 Patients receiving unsatisfactory health care (lack of care, psychological
support/treatment, rehabilitation or palliative treatment) (Questions 1i and 1k)
46 49 5
Different cultures, religions or philosophies of life (Question 1g) 27 68 5 Professional secrecy and the duty of confidentiality (Question 1d) 27 60 13 Use of coercion (Question 1c) 25 62 13 Unsatisfactory palliative treatment (Question 1f) 24 56 20 Withdrawing or initiating life-prolonging treatment (Question 1e) 23 60 18
Table 2. Working closer to the patient – percentage of respondents who answer ‘frequently’ (N ¼ 134–141).
Further away from the patient (%)
Closer to the patient (%)
p valuea
Patients’ needs for social contact, physical activity or self-expression are not adequately met (Questions 1j and 1l)
43 65 0.06
Information and communication with patients and relatives (Question 1a) 32 58 0.02b
How many patients and relatives should decide (Question 1b) 32 60 0.01b
Being unable to carry out your job in a satisfactory way (Question 1h) 27 51 0.04b
Patients receiving unsatisfactory health care (lack of care, psychological support/treatment, rehabilitation or palliative treatment) (Questions 1i and 1k)
14 51 0.00b
Different cultures, religions or philosophies of life (Question 1g) 27 29 0.90 Professional secrecy and the duty of confidentiality (Question 1d) 5 32 0.01b
Use of coercion (Question 1c) 14 29 0.13 Unsatisfactory palliative treatment (Question 1f) 5 30 0.02
b
Withdrawing or initiating life-prolonging treatment (Question 1e) 5 26 0.03b
aFor the 2 � 2 tables (chi-square tests). bStatistically significant difference (< 0.05).
Lillemoen and Pedersen 101
101
Table 4. Ethical challenges (main themes and subthemes and condensed examples).
Resources and professional responsibility
Patient autonomy, privacy and the role of relatives Coercion End of life
1. Lack of time and staff Having to downgrade
the users’ opportunities to go outside and have some fresh air due to workforce shortage
When users are forgotten
When the user receives inadequate assistance due to resource problems
2. Lack of competence Too much responsibility
for unskilled workers When there is a
predominance of foreigners on extra shifts
Misunderstandings in the patient’s reports may harm the patient
1. Patient autonomy Can we decide how
much the user is allowed to eat in order to prevent obesity?
2. Lack of capacity When the patient lacks
mental capacity, who should then decide, us or the patient’s relatives?
3. Privacy When we talk privately
with the patient and others can listen
4. The role of relatives When relatives decide
without awareness of/ regard to the user’s needs
1. Forced feeding Giving a drink with the
drug/medication when he will not open his mouth
2. Forced care When a patient resists
personal hygiene and we use force to do it
3. Forced medication We crush and mix drugs
in the jam and put on their sandwich when the patients do not take drugs
4. Preventing free mobility Patients are tied to their
chair to prevent falls, when staff is lacking
1. Treatment intensity How much should you
treat? 2. Disagreements
When relatives want treatment not beneficial to the patient
When relatives want the doctor to give antibiotics and other medication to the patient even when the patient refuses treatment
How much treatment should be initiated? What is the patient’s desire?
Is it right to give antibiotics when the patient is dying?
Table 3. The largest professional groups – percentage of respondents who answered ‘frequently’ (N ¼ 85–91).
Nursing assistant and auxiliary nurses (%)
Nurses (%)
p value
a
Patients’ needs for social contact, physical activity or self-expression are not adequately met (Questions 1j and 1l)
62 79 0.13
Information and communication with patients and relatives (Question 1a) 55 68 0.28 How many patients and relatives should decide (Question 1b) 62 60 0.87 Being unable to carry out your job in a satisfactory way (Question 1h) 42 72 0.011b
Patients receiving unsatisfactory health care (lack of care, psychological support/ treatment, rehabilitation or palliative treatment) (Questions 1i and 1k)
48 67 0.13
Different cultures, religions or philosophies of life (Question 1g) 21 44 0.03 b
Professional secrecy and the duty of confidentiality (Question 1d) 33 24 0.39 Use of coercion (Question 1c) 29 36 0.53 Unsatisfactory palliative treatment (Question 1f) 24 54 0.01b
Withdrawing or initiating life-prolonging treatment (Question 1e) 23 33 0.35
aFor the 2 � 2 tables (chi-square tests). b Statistically significant difference (<0.05).
102 Nursing Ethics 20(1)
102
How important is it to deal with ethical challenges better and how should this be done?
Nearly, all of the respondents think it is significant to work more systematically with ethical challenges and
to increase the ethical competence of their workplace (94% when clustering ‘very important’ (66%) and ‘quite important’ (28%)). A large majority of the respondents (89%) think that all members of the staff should increase their ethical competence. Furthermore, most of the respondents want more time for ethical
discussions and meeting places where ethical challenges can be discussed systematically (e.g. reflection
groups or ethics committees) (see Table 5). Management and key members of the staff are regarded to
be important target groups for ethics training by most of the participants (84% and 80%, respectively), and most of the staff members want the possibility to seek advice when needed from a colleague with skills in
ethics or from an ethics committee (see Table 5).
When asked about what the content of ethics education should be (open-ended question), the
answers indicate that the respondents most of all would like to have ethics training that gives them
an opportunity to reflect on, and discuss more systematically, specific ethical challenges emerging
in their working day. Second, they want the possibility to discuss more general ethical challenges
such as the following:
� How to handle end-of-life care situations � The relationships with patients and their families � How to manage the relationship with frail elderly patients when the question of autonomy and
the risk of coercion is apparent (e.g. care and personal hygiene, medical treatment and setting
limits when the patient has reduced decision-making capacity).
As shown in Table 5, ethical guidelines are also wanted by most of the respondents. When asked
what kind of guidelines they wanted (open-ended question), the answers indicate that the staff mem-
bers want guidelines that can be helpful in dealing with specific ethical challenges rather than more
general guidelines or value documents.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was threefold: First, to identify the frequency of ethical challenges and how dis-
tressed the various types of ethical challenges make the primary health-care workers feel; second, how
Table 5. How to handle ethical challenges and increase ethical competence.
Yes (%) No (%) Uncertain (%)
Someone who can give guidance: 76 12 13 A colleague with skills in ethics 66 20 14 An ethics committee 57 19 24 A lawyer 29 42 29 Meeting place for systematic ethics discussions 64 15 21 More time for ethical discussion 63 16 21 Ethical guidelines 59 16 25 Internet-based teaching 24 45 31
Lillemoen and Pedersen 103
103
important health-care workers in primary health care think it is to deal better with these challenges; and
third, what kind of ethics support they want. The findings in the present study show that health-care workers
in primary care frequently experience varied and complex ethical challenges in their work. The way these
specific challenges are dealt with by health-care workers means a lot not only to patients, next of kin and
colleagues but also to the staff themselves. This is in accordance with other studies. 9,11
Furthermore, those
working closer to the patients generally experience these ethical dilemmas more often and as more burden-
some than those working further away from the patients. These kinds of variations are also supported by
earlier research in nursing homes and other health-care facilities. 11,16,25
Interestingly, the nurses experi-
enced ethical challenges related to unsatisfactory care more often and also reported the ethical challenges
to be more burdensome than the other large professional groups working closest to the patient. This may be
related to their level of education and knowledge, that is, experiencing something as unsatisfactory, and
more generally experiencing moral distress, may be related to the level of competence of health-care work-
ers. If this is the case, one may argue that a certain level of competence and moral distress is probably una-
voidable in assuring a satisfactory level of care and that a lack of perceived ethical challenges among staff is
in itself no proof of good care. However, further research is needed to explore these findings and their pos-
sible relations and explanations.
Among the most prominent of this study’s findings is the fact that many of the most frequently experi-
enced ethical challenges are not given much notice in traditional medical and health science ethics and are
not even regarded as ethics by many. Two important examples are the frequently reported ethical challenges
related to communication, and the ethical challenges employees experience when not being able to do their
job properly due to lack of resources, for example, being short on staff, and insufficient knowledge and com-
petence. Not only does it lead to a reduced quality of the work, as reported by the staff, but it also leads to
mistakes being made and to illegal use of coercion against the patients. Some might argue that this is a mat-
ter of priorities, but traditional theories and ethics of priority settings (for instance, accountability for rea-
sonableness or the Norwegian criteria for priority: seriousness, usefulness and cost efficiency) are likely to
be of lesser relevance in handling the challenges resulting from the limited resources.
Perhaps, most of all, it is a matter of how to do a good job and retain motivation, meaning and profes-
sional integrity, as well as relations to users, next of kin and colleagues, within the given framework con-
ditions. In regard to the relatively ample resources available in Norwegian primary health care, and perhaps
especially in the region the study took place, this may seem paradoxical. If instead, it is seen in relation to
the fact that possibilities increase, more than the finances allow, it is less surprising. Nor is it hard to
understand that communication and information often become ethically challenging if one feels that there
is no time for more than the bare minimum, or if the staff frequently offer help of a lesser quality than they
would like.
In the staff member’s own descriptions of especially difficult ethical challenges met in their work day,
we see the prominence of the more traditional ethical challenges, for instance, ethics at the end of life and
the use of coercion. This coincides with earlier studies, 11
which show that even if these are not the most
frequently experienced ethical challenges, they are some of the most challenging. The questions of intensity
of treatment and the timing of ending life-prolonging treatment are central. In addition, next of kind’s role,
participation specifically tied to end-of-life circumstances and more generally, is seen as an ethically chal-
lenging question in this study as well.
The staff member’s description of ethical challenges caused by lacking resources is worrisome, espe-
cially considering the fact that the study was carried out in a municipality that has more resources than most
others. Compared to the other municipalities in Norway, this one has a higher percentage of college-trained
staff members and a lower percentage of unskilled staff members. The numbers indicate that staff members
in Norway’s other municipalities are unlikely to experience this less than the participants in this study. The
staff member’s descriptions of ethical challenges contain everything from unfortunate to incompetent
104 Nursing Ethics 20(1)
104
communication, for instance in relation to persons with dementia, forced feeding, forced medicating and
forced care of patients who resist. Due to lack of time or lack of competence, alternative solutions are not
tried. In the busy work day, attending to the patient’s primary needs is prioritized, even when the patient
objects.
The staff members see improvement of the methods for handling ethical challenges as vital. In
accordance with other studies, 9
informal conversations between staff members are the most common way
of dealing with the ethical challenges of the work day. This is seen as unsatisfactory, and the staff sees the
need for increased ethical competency. A prominent finding in this regard is that increased ethical compe-
tency is wanted for all the employees, also for management.
It is in the close face-to-face relations that the ethical challenges are most prominent, and therefore, per-
haps, the staff member’s specification of the need for increased ethical competency for all can be explained
as an acknowledgement that their own ethical competency is too fragile to properly handle patients with
severe needs and their next of kin. In addition to increased competency, the participants point to the need
for time and a place where staff can discuss ethical dilemmas. In Norway, it is a fact that many of the tra-
ditional arenas for discussion are removed for efficiency reasons. For example, collegial meetings where the
nursing home staff members can discuss the patients’ problems together are substituted with the individual
responsibility of staff members to learn about the patients alone. Instead of an interdisciplinary meeting
where care and treatment of the individual patient are discussed, each health-care worker has the indi-
vidual responsibility to get acquainted with the written documentation available about each patient.
Many health-care workers describe ethics as an integrated part of their profession and of their work
day, it is in the conversations about the practice that ethics are reflected. When the arenas for con-
versations about the practice disappear, the room for ethical reflection is reduced to an individual
responsibility. The findings of this study point to a need to reinstate natural interdisciplinary arenas
for discussion. One way to do this is by creating reflection groups that systematically discuss ethical
challenges. This study, however, suggests that it is not enough to give the staff members the time and
the opportunity to reflect on ethical challenges. The reflection seemingly needs to be close to practice,
grounded in specific problems, offer new and better solutions, be feasible to carry out during the work
day and involve everyone. 26
In their wish for ethics support, the participants point to a colleague with ethical competency, not to an
external ethics consultant. This finding seems to be in accordance with the other findings; the ethical chal-
lenges are an integrated part of the staff’s work day, and it is there they feel the need for a boost. Perhaps, a
colleague with ethical competency can be the one to lead the ethical reflection that the staff wish for in their
work day. This finding seems to oppose a move towards using ethics consultants or ethics experts to aid the
health-care workers.
It is the situations that are close to practice, situations that are ethically challenging in one’s own work
day, that the staff primarily want to reflect upon, discuss and get help to see alternative ways to handle. The
participants want teaching and meetings where the focus is systematic discussion of their own specific ethi-
cal challenges, and how to find alternative ways to handle these challenges. Their wishes for the content of
ethics education indicate that they see ethical competency as the ability to handle specific ethical challenges
in a good and systematic way. While ethical theory and general teaching are not sought by many, it seems
that the health-care workers see arenas for ethical reflection as a type of collective skill development in
ethics, which can help better the way ethical challenges are dealt with in practice.
The wish for Internet-based teaching is minimal and may reflect that the staff has limited access to this,
but it can also indicate that they have a view of ethics as dialogue based, since arenas, time and joint
discussions are requested so much. Even if this study shows that more than anything the staff wants to dis-
cuss ethical challenges with colleagues, they also want to have the option to seek advice from someone with
special ethical competency in specific situations. Most of all, they want to seek out another staff member
Lillemoen and Pedersen 105
105
with more ethical competency. In the cases where the staff sees a need for external expertise, they point to
the need for an ethics committee.
It is a little surprising that so many see ethics committees as a group that they want to seek advice from.
Rapports from ethics committees in hospitals 7
show that they struggle with their visibility and that there is
little demand for their services. Furthermore, ethics support in the form of ethics committees is still rela-
tively unknown among staff in primary health care in Norway. When the staff still confirm the need for such
a measure, it can be an essential signal that the need for ethics support is pressing and that the staff want
various forms of ethics support. Perhaps, the establishment of ‘close to practice’ ethics measures, such
as reflection groups, will lead to even more attention to ethical questions and to ethics skill development,
which in turn may also increase the use of other types of ethics support, such as ethics committees. More
external expertise, such as legal practitioners, are less sought after for handling ethical challenges. It is
worth mentioning that while an employee of a hospital rarely has to make decisions and handle difficult
situations alone, the reality in primary health care is the opposite. Few doctors and a large number of
employees without specific professional training is more the rule than the exception. This is probably
an important reason for the reported need for joint discussions and competency building for all staff
members.
Limitations
This study did not include all kinds of primary health-care services and only a very limited number of phy-
sicians; the response rates were relatively modest, and the validation of the questionnaire could have been
more extensive. Compared with other similar studies, 9
the response rate was relatively good and the breadth
relatively extensive. We do not know of any formally validated questionnaires developed for this kind of
study. On the other hand, the results in our study seem to be consistent with earlier studies where we asked
similar questions. 14
Conclusions
Primary health-care workers who participated in this study reported that ethical challenges occur frequently
in their work days. The ethical challenges they describe are closely related to professional and organiza-
tional circumstances, with lacking resources as the most prominent, for instance lack of staff and compe-
tence. While the staff experience the ethical questions as an integrated part of their practice, others may not
see this as ethics at all. Our findings show that the health-care workers’ values clash with what they see
themselves doing in their practice, such as hiding medication in food, tying patients to the chair or using
force to clean the patient. These are the issues that are given less attention than, for example, ethical chal-
lenges related to end of life.
A large majority feel that there is a need for ethics support and development of ethics competency in
primary health care, and it is emphasized that this should be offered to everyone. The need for more arenas
for discussion is pointed out, where common reflection about ethical challenges of the work day could take
place. There is a need to set aside time for this. What is most requested, both regarding ethics support and
reflection, is that which is close to practice. In addition, a need for more external ethics support is expressed,
for example, in the form of ethics committees. More general, external, specialized or theoretical
approaches, approaches that do not focus on the specific or practical challenges the staff faces or that are
not action-based or problem solving, are seemingly not what the staff wants.
This study suggests that the staff sees ethics competency and ethics support as closely related and that
they want it as close to practice as possible. It is also apparent that regardless of which measures are taken
(education, guidelines, arenas for discussion and supervision), many workers in primary health care wish to
106 Nursing Ethics 20(1)
106
have the opportunity themselves to discuss and handle specific ethical challenges along with other staff
members in a systematic way.
Funding
This research received fundings from the participating municipality and from the Norwegian Ministry of
Health and Care.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Fox E, Myers S and Pearlman RA. Ethics consultation in United States hospitals: a national survey. Am J Bioeth
2007; 7(2): 13–25.
2. Hurst SA, Reiter-Theil S, Perrier A, et al. Physicians’ access to ethics support services in four European countries.
Health Care Anal 2007; 15(4): 321–335.
3. Gaudine A, Thorne L, LeFort SM, et al. Evolution of hospital clinical ethics committees in Canada. J Med Ethics
2010; 36(3): 132–137.
4. Slowther A, Johnston C, Goodall J, et al. Development of clinical ethics committees. BMJ 2004; 328(7445):
950–952.
5. Vollmann J, Burchardi N and Weidtmann A. Health care ethics committees in German university clinics. A survey
of all medical directors and directors of nursing. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2004; 129(22): 1237–1242.
6. McNeill PM. A critical analysis of Australian clinical ethics committees and the functions they serve. Bioethics
2001; 15(5–6): 443–460.
7. Forde R and Pedersen R. Clinical ethics committees in Norway: what do they do, and does it make a difference?
Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2011; 20(3): 389–395.
8. Molewijk AC, Abma T, Stolper M, et al. Teaching ethics in the clinic. The theory and practice of moral case
deliberation. J Med Ethics 2008; 34(2): 120–124.
9. Bollig G, Pedersen R and Førde R. Etikk i sykehjem og hjemmetjenester [Ethics in nursing homes and home care].
Sykepleien Forskning 2009; 4(3): 186–196.
10. Suhonen R, Stolt M, Launis V, et al. Research on ethics in nursing care for older people: a literature review. Nurs
Ethics 2010; 17(3): 337–352.
11. Gjerberg E, Forde R, Pedersen R, et al. Ethical challenges in the provision of end-of-life care in Norwegian nursing
homes. Soc Sci Med 2010; 71(4): 677–684.
12. Bolmsjo IA, Sandman L and Andersson E. Everyday ethics in the care of elderly people. Nurs Ethics 2006; 13(3):
249–263.
13. Rees J, King L and Schmitz K. Nurses’ perceptions of ethical issues in the care of older people. Nurs Ethics 2009;
16(4): 436–452.
14. Racine E and Hayes K. The need for a clinical ethics service and its goals in a community healthcare service centre:
a survey. J Med Ethics 2006; 32(10): 564–566.
15. Jacobsen R and Sorli V. Dignity of older people in a nursing home: narratives of care providers. Nurs Ethics 2010;
17(3): 289–300.
16. Forde R, Pedersen R, Nortvedt P, et al. Enough resources for the care of the elderly? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2006;
126(15): 1913–1916 (in Norwegian).
17. Menezes B and Tadros G. Implementing the Mental Capacity Act in nursing homes: between obligation and
application. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008; 23(3): 334–335.
18. Kirkevold O and Engedal K. Prevalence of patients subjected to constraint in Norwegian nursing homes. Scand J
Caring Sci 2004; 18(3): 281–286.
Lillemoen and Pedersen 107
107
19. Schaffer MA. Ethical problems in end-of-life decisions for elderly Norwegians. Nurs Ethics 2007; 14(2): 242–257.
20. Pedersen R and Forde R. What do clinical ethics committees do? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2005; 125(22):
3127–3129.
21. Whitehead JM, Sokol DK, Bowman D, et al. Consultation activities of clinical ethics committees in the United
Kingdom: an empirical study and wake-up call. Postgrad Med J 2009; 85(1007): 451–454.
22. Slowther A, Bunch C, Woolnough B, et al. Clinical ethics support services in the UK: an investigation of the current
provision of ethics support to health professionals in the UK. J Med Ethics 2001; 27(suppl. 1): i2–i8.
23. Pedersen R, Hurst SA, Schildman J, et al. The development of a descriptive evaluation tool for clinical ethics case
consultations. Clin Ethics 2010; 5(3): 136–141.
24. Graneheim UH and Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and
measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004; 24: 105–112.
25. Foglia MB, Pearlman RA, Bottrell M, et al. Ethical challenges within veterans administration healthcare facilities:
perspectives of managers, clinicians, patients, and ethics committee chairpersons. Am J Bioeth 2009; 9(4): 28–36.
26. Van Der Dam SS, Abma TA, Molewijk AC, et al. Organizing moral case deliberation experiences in two Dutch
nursing homes. Nurs Ethics 2011; 18(3): 327–340.
108 Nursing Ethics 20(1)
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
