Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process

Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. [verfasserIn] de Vet, H. C. W. [verfasserIn] Widdershoven, G. A. M. [verfasserIn] Molewijk, A. C. [verfasserIn] Svantesson, M. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	Clinical ethics support Moral case deliberation Evaluation research Outcomes Instrument revision Revision process Mixed methods

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC medical ethics - London : BioMed Central, 2000, 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:21 ; year:2020 ; number:1 ; day:02 ; month:07

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3

Katalog-ID:	SPR040220850

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR040220850
003	DE-627
005	20230519162944.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR040220850
035			\|a (SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q ASE
084			\|a 44.00 \|2 bkl
100	1		\|a de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.
650		4	\|a Clinical ethics support \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Moral case deliberation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Evaluation research \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Outcomes \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Instrument revision \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Revision process \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Mixed methods \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a de Vet, H. C. W. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Widdershoven, G. A. M. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Molewijk, A. C. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Svantesson, M. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC medical ethics \|d London : BioMed Central, 2000 \|g 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli \|w (DE-627)326645403 \|w (DE-600)2041552-7 \|x 1472-6939 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:21 \|g year:2020 \|g number:1 \|g day:02 \|g month:07
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
936	b	k	\|a 44.00 \|q ASE
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 21 \|j 2020 \|e 1 \|b 02 \|c 07

Indexfelder

author_variant	s t j c d stjc stjcd v h c w d vhcw vhcwd g a m w gam gamw a c m ac acm m s ms
matchkey_str	article:14726939:2020----::oacmeecmrlemoknmrlcinherpamrlaeeieainucmsuoci
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
bklnumber	44.00
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 doi (DE-627)SPR040220850 (SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. verfasserin aut Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD. Clinical ethics support (dpeaa)DE-He213 Moral case deliberation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Evaluation research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Outcomes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrument revision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Revision process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Mixed methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Vet, H. C. W. verfasserin aut Widdershoven, G. A. M. verfasserin aut Molewijk, A. C. verfasserin aut Svantesson, M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 21 2020 1 02 07
spelling	10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 doi (DE-627)SPR040220850 (SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. verfasserin aut Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD. Clinical ethics support (dpeaa)DE-He213 Moral case deliberation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Evaluation research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Outcomes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrument revision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Revision process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Mixed methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Vet, H. C. W. verfasserin aut Widdershoven, G. A. M. verfasserin aut Molewijk, A. C. verfasserin aut Svantesson, M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 21 2020 1 02 07
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 doi (DE-627)SPR040220850 (SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. verfasserin aut Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD. Clinical ethics support (dpeaa)DE-He213 Moral case deliberation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Evaluation research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Outcomes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrument revision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Revision process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Mixed methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Vet, H. C. W. verfasserin aut Widdershoven, G. A. M. verfasserin aut Molewijk, A. C. verfasserin aut Svantesson, M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 21 2020 1 02 07
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 doi (DE-627)SPR040220850 (SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. verfasserin aut Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD. Clinical ethics support (dpeaa)DE-He213 Moral case deliberation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Evaluation research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Outcomes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrument revision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Revision process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Mixed methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Vet, H. C. W. verfasserin aut Widdershoven, G. A. M. verfasserin aut Molewijk, A. C. verfasserin aut Svantesson, M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 21 2020 1 02 07
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 doi (DE-627)SPR040220850 (SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE 44.00 bkl de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. verfasserin aut Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD. Clinical ethics support (dpeaa)DE-He213 Moral case deliberation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Evaluation research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Outcomes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrument revision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Revision process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Mixed methods (dpeaa)DE-He213 de Vet, H. C. W. verfasserin aut Widdershoven, G. A. M. verfasserin aut Molewijk, A. C. verfasserin aut Svantesson, M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 44.00 ASE AR 21 2020 1 02 07
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC medical ethics 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli volume:21 year:2020 number:1 day:02 month:07
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC medical ethics 21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli volume:21 year:2020 number:1 day:02 month:07
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Clinical ethics support Moral case deliberation Evaluation research Outcomes Instrument revision Revision process Mixed methods
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC medical ethics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. @@aut@@ de Vet, H. C. W. @@aut@@ Widdershoven, G. A. M. @@aut@@ Molewijk, A. C. @@aut@@ Svantesson, M. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-07-02T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	326645403
dewey-sort	3610
id	SPR040220850
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR040220850</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519162944.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR040220850</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Snoo-Trimp, J. C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Clinical ethics support</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Moral case deliberation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evaluation research</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Outcomes</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Instrument revision</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Revision process</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mixed methods</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Vet, H. C. W.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Widdershoven, G. A. M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Molewijk, A. C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Svantesson, M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326645403</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041552-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1472-6939</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:02</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.00</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">02</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	de Snoo-Trimp, J. C.
spellingShingle	de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. ddc 610 bkl 44.00 misc Clinical ethics support misc Moral case deliberation misc Evaluation research misc Outcomes misc Instrument revision misc Revision process misc Mixed methods Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process
authorStr	de Snoo-Trimp, J. C.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)326645403
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1472-6939
topic_title	610 ASE 44.00 bkl Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process Clinical ethics support (dpeaa)DE-He213 Moral case deliberation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Evaluation research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Outcomes (dpeaa)DE-He213 Instrument revision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Revision process (dpeaa)DE-He213 Mixed methods (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 610 bkl 44.00 misc Clinical ethics support misc Moral case deliberation misc Evaluation research misc Outcomes misc Instrument revision misc Revision process misc Mixed methods
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 bkl 44.00 misc Clinical ethics support misc Moral case deliberation misc Evaluation research misc Outcomes misc Instrument revision misc Revision process misc Mixed methods
topic_browse	ddc 610 bkl 44.00 misc Clinical ethics support misc Moral case deliberation misc Evaluation research misc Outcomes misc Instrument revision misc Revision process misc Mixed methods
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC medical ethics
hierarchy_parent_id	326645403
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	BMC medical ethics
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7
title	Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR040220850 (SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e
title_full	Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process
author_sort	de Snoo-Trimp, J. C.
journal	BMC medical ethics
journalStr	BMC medical ethics
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	de Snoo-Trimp, J. C. de Vet, H. C. W. Widdershoven, G. A. M. Molewijk, A. C. Svantesson, M.
container_volume	21
class	610 ASE 44.00 bkl
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	de Snoo-Trimp, J. C.
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3
dewey-full	610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the european moral case deliberation outcomes (euro-mcd) instrument 2.0 and its revision process
title_auth	Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process
abstract	Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.
abstractGer	Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.
abstract_unstemmed	Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3
remote_bool	true
author2	de Vet, H. C. W. Widdershoven, G. A. M. Molewijk, A. C. Svantesson, M.
author2Str	de Vet, H. C. W. Widdershoven, G. A. M. Molewijk, A. C. Svantesson, M.
ppnlink	326645403
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3
up_date	2024-07-03T14:34:31.097Z
_version_	1803568830064099328
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR040220850</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519162944.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR040220850</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12910-020-00493-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Snoo-Trimp, J. C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. Methods The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. Results The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. ‘now’) instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. ‘better’) and we omitted the question about perceived importance. Conclusions The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Clinical ethics support</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Moral case deliberation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evaluation research</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Outcomes</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Instrument revision</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Revision process</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mixed methods</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Vet, H. C. W.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Widdershoven, G. A. M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Molewijk, A. C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Svantesson, M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2020), 1 vom: 02. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326645403</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041552-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1472-6939</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:02</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00493-3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.00</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">02</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4004374

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?