Marjolein Gysels

This paper investigates the working practices of the Genetic Choir and the “Stem&Luister” project, in which the ensemble uses voice, sound and improvisation to explore and develop ways of connecting with people with dementia, thereby seeking to improve the experience of care. Their musical sessions are multilayered. First, through listening they develop a sense of the people and the environment. Then through introducing their vocal practices, they breach the prevailing sonic regime. Second, through immersing the residents in sound-making and singing, they draw on the material and sensorial qualities of sound. This gives access to those who were difficult to reach and offers both an alternative means of communication and enables the recognition of selves. A third layer concerns the strategic use of improvisation, of which the deployment of “ensemble” and “instant composition” are analysed. Recognising the compositional efforts in improvisation shows their work to be a form of design. It facilitates attention to personhood, relations, and diversity. This specific practice appears as an untapped resource for the health and wellbeing of people with cognitive and speech impairments. Theoretically, the findings have implications for the notion of care and provide support from practice to existing neurological evidence of the significance of music as a fundamental faculty for survival and wellbeing.

This paper enquires into the significance and potential of inclusive dance through the working process of a dance piece developed by a mixed team of professional dancers and dancers with disabilities. It is a self-reflective piece on what it means to live with a disability. The interplays between the artistic work and reality that emerged during rehearsals disrupted categories such as reality and fiction, process and performance, difference and normality. It analyses the mechanisms of reality that are put to work, and the aesthetic strategies that are used on the basis of examples from practice.

Background: Clinical ethics support services have been advocated in recent decades. In clinical practice, clinical ethics support services are often requested for difficult decisions near the end of life. However, their contribution to improving healthcare has been questioned and demands for evaluation have been put forward. Research indicates that there are considerable challenges associated with defining adequate outcomes for clinical ethics support services. In this systematic review, we report findings of qualitative studies and surveys, which have been conducted to evaluate clinical ethics support services near the end of life. Methods: Electronic databases and other sources were queried from 1970 to May 2018. Two authors screened studies independently. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For each arm of the review, an individual synthesis was performed. Prospero ID: CRD42016036241. Ethical Considerations: Ethical approval is not needed as it is a systematic review of published literature. Results: In all, 2088 hits on surveys and 2786 on qualitative studies were found. After screening, nine surveys and four qualitative studies were included. Survey studies report overall positive findings using a very wide and heterogeneous range of outcomes. Negative results were reported only occasionally. However, methodological quality and conceptual justification of used outcomes was often weak and limits generalizability of results. Conclusion: Evidence points to positive outcomes of clinical ethics support services. However, methodological quality needs to be improved. Further qualitative or mixed-method research on evaluating clinical ethics support services may contribute to the development of evaluating outcomes of clinical ethics support services by means of broaden the range of appropriate (process-oriented) outcomes of (different types of) clinical ethics support services.

Background Decisions in clinical medicine can be associated with ethical challenges. Ethical case interventions (e.g. ethics committee, moral case deliberation) identify and analyse ethical conflicts which occur within the context of care for patients. Ethical case interventions involve ethical experts, different health professionals as well as the patient and his/her family. The aim is to support decision‐making in clinical practice. This systematic review gathered and critically appraised the available evidence of controlled studies on the effectiveness of ethical case interventions. Objectives To determine whether ethical case interventions result in reduced decisional conflict or moral distress of those affected by an ethical conflict in clinical practice; improved patient involvement in decision‐making and a higher quality of life in adult patients. To determine the most effective models of ethical case interventions and to analyse the use and appropriateness of the outcomes in experimental studies. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases for primary studies to September 2018: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched CDSR and DARE for related reviews. Furthermore, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and conducted a cited reference search for all included studies in ISI WEB of Science. We also searched the references of the included studies. Selection criteria We included randomised trials, non‐randomised trials, controlled before‐after studies and interrupted time series studies which compared ethical case interventions with usual care or an active control in any language. The included population were adult patients. However, studies with mixed populations consisting of adults and children were included, if a subgroup or sensitivity analysis (or both) was performed for the adult population. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care review group. We used meta‐analysis based on a random‐effects model for treatment costs and structured analysis for the remaining outcomes, because these were heterogeneously reported. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main results We included four randomised trials published in six articles. The publication dates ranged from 2000 to 2014. Three studies were conducted in the USA, and one study in Taiwan. All studies were conducted on intensive care units and included 1165 patients. We judged the included studies to be of moderate or high risk of bias. It was not possible to compare different models of the intervention regarding effectiveness due to the diverse character of the interventions and the small number of studies. Included studies did not directly measure the main outcomes. All studies received public funding and one received additional funding from private sources. We identified two models of ethical case interventions: proactive and request‐based ethics consultation. Three studies evaluated proactive ethics consultation (n = 1103) of which one study reported findings on one key outcome criterion. The studies did not report data on decisional conflict, moral distress of participants of ethical case interventions, patient involvement in decision‐making, quality of life or ethical competency for proactive ethics consultation. One study assessed satisfaction with care on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = lowest rating, 5 = highest rating). The healthcare providers (nurses and physicians, n = 365) scored a value of 4 or 5 for 81.4% in the control group and 86.1% in the intervention group (P > 0.05). The patients or their surrogates (n = 275) scored a value of 4 or 5 for 83.6% in the control group and for 74.8% in the intervention group (P > 0.05). It was uncertain whether proactive ethics consultation led to high satisfaction with care, because the certainty of evidence was very low. One study evaluated request‐based ethics consultation (n = 62). The study indirectly measured decisional conflict by assessing consensus regarding patient care. The risk (increase in consensus, reduction in decisional conflict) increased by 80% as a result of the intervention. The risk ratio was 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.46; P < 0.01). It was uncertain whether request‐based ethics consultation reduced decisional conflict, because the certainty of evidence was very low. The study did not report data on moral distress of participants of ethical case interventions, patient involvement in decision‐making, quality of life, or ethical competency or satisfaction with care for request‐based ethics consultation. Authors' conclusions It is not possible to determine the effectiveness of ethical case interventions with certainty due to the low certainty of the evidence of included studies in this review. The effectiveness of ethical case interventions should be investigated in light of the outcomes reported in this systematic review. In addition, there is need for further research to identify and measure outcomes which reflect the goals of different types of ethical case intervention.

Evaluating clinical ethics support services (CESS) has been hailed as important research task. At the same time, there is considerable debate about how to evaluate CESS appropriately. The criticism, which has been aired, refers to normative as well as empirical aspects of evaluating CESS. In this paper, we argue that a first necessary step for progress is to better understand the intervention(s) in CESS. Tools of complex intervention research methodology may provide relevant means in this respect. In a first step, we introduce principles of “complex intervention research” and show how CESS fulfil the criteria of “complex interventions”. In a second step, we develop a generic “conceptual framework” for “ethics consultation on request” as standard for many forms of ethics consultation in clinical ethics practice. We apply this conceptual framework to the model of “bioethics mediation” to make explicit the specific structural and procedural elements of this form of ethics consultation on request. In a final step we conduct a comparative analysis of two different types of CESS, which have been subject to evaluation research: “proactive ethics consultation” and “moral case deliberation” and discuss implications for evaluating both types of CESS. To make explicit different premises of implemented CESS interventions by means of conceptual frameworks can inform the search for sound empirical evaluation of CESS. In addition, such work provides a starting point for further reflection about what it means to offer “good” CESS.

Objective: There are few studies on how professional caregivers apply the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) in nursing home care for people with dementia. Further, despite critiques in the United Kingdom, the LCP continues to be used in the Netherlands, while, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have been conducted since its implementation. The purpose of the present study was to analyze professional caregivers' experiences with the LCP in this context.Method: This article draws on an ethnographic study. Data collection was based on 4 months of ethnographic fieldwork in 2015 in 11 psychogeriatric units of a nursing home in a rural area of the Netherlands. Data collection included participant observation and 25 semistructured audiotaped interviews with specialist elderly care physicians, nursing staff, and a nurse practitioner.Results: We found that professional caregivers appreciate the LCP as a communication tool and as a reminder of care goals. However, the document was deemed too complicated and to cause duplication of work. It was also reported that the LCP did not cover the complexity of care needs that emerge in practice. Actual care needs were prioritized over the LCP, which calls its contribution into question.Significance of Results: Overall, the LCP does not match the context of dementia care in the nursing home. While it could be argued that the LCP does not intend to replace good care, its benefits as a reminder and a communication tool need continued consideration in relation to the amount of work it requires as a bureaucratic obligation.

The worldwide number of dementia cases is increasing, and this is a trend that is expected to continue as a growing proportion of the population ages. However, conducting research with persons suffering from dementia can be fraught due to fears surrounding research risks in vulnerable populations. This can make seeking approval for studies difficult. As research directly involving persons with dementia is key for the development of evidence-based best practice, the development of a coherent ethical strategy to perform such research feasibly and effectively is of paramount importance. this paper aims to review and synthesise ethical challenges in performing research with persons who have dementia. in undertaking a systematic review of the current research literature, we will identify the central issues and arguments characterising research that concerns the ethical dimensions of research participation in the dementia population. Data were analysed using both inductive and deductive content analysis. Ethical considerations in research involving persons with dementia primarily concern the representation of the interests of the person with dementia and protection of their vulnerabilities and rights. a total of 2,894 results were returned from initial searches, following deduplication. In total, 2,458 were excluded at title review, and following abstract review 158 papers remained; 29 papers were included for analysis after full paper review and data extraction. Papers ranged between 1995 and 2013. this review has highlighted a lack of consensus in current research and guidelines addressing these concerns; a clear stance on ethical governance of studies is important for future research and best evidence-based practice in dementia.