Exploration of Clinical Ethics Consultation in Uganda: A case study of Uganda Cancer Institute

TL;DR

This study explores how ethical dilemmas in healthcare are handled at Uganda's Cancer Institute, finding that there is no formal system in place and recommending the creation of a clinical ethics committee.

Contribution

The study identifies the lack of formal clinical ethics mechanisms in Uganda and proposes a multidisciplinary ethics committee as a novel solution.

Findings

No formal committee or mechanism exists at Uganda Cancer Institute to resolve ethical dilemmas.

Six informal fora are currently used, but participants doubt their effectiveness due to lack of ethics training.

Participants strongly recommend establishing a clinical ethics committee with trained professionals.

Abstract

Globally, healthcare providers (HCPs), hospital administrators, patients and their caretakers are increasingly confronted with complex moral, social, cultural, ethical, and legal dilemmas during clinical care. In high-income countries (HICs), formal and informal clinical ethics support services (CESS) have been used to resolve bioethical conflicts among HCPs, patients, and their families. There is limited evidence of mechanisms used to resolve these issues as well as experiences and perspectives of the stakeholders that utilize them in most African countries including Uganda.

This qualitative study utilized in-depth-interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect data from Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) staff, patients, and caretakers, who were purposively selected. Data was analyzed deductively and inductively yielding themes and sub-themes that were used to develop a codebook.

There was no formal committee nor mechanism utilized to resolve ethical dilemmas at the UCI. The study uncovered six fora where ethical dilemmas were addressed: individual consultations, tumor board meetings, morbidity and mortality meetings, core management meetings, rewards and sanctions committee meetings, and clinical departmental meetings. Participants expressed apprehension regarding the efficacy of these fora due to their non-ethics related agendas as well as members lacking training in medical ethics and the necessary experience to effectively resolve ethical dilemmas.

The fora employed at the UCI to address ethical dilemmas were implicit, involving decisions made through various structures without the guidance of personnel well-versed in medical or clinical ethics. There was a strong recommendation from participants to establish a multidisciplinary clinical ethics committee comprising members who are trained, skilled, and experienced in medical and clinical ethics.