# The VALUE Study: Exploring the Value of a Clinical Ethics Consultation Service at the “A. Gemelli” Hospital

## TL;DR

This study explores how a clinical ethics consultation service is perceived and evaluated at a hospital, highlighting its role in improving patient-centered care and teamwork.

## Contribution

The study introduces a qualitative evaluation framework for clinical ethics consultation services and identifies strategies for their improvement.

## Key findings

- Participants viewed clinical ethics consultants as 'active third parties' who mediate conflicts and support shared care planning.
- The service was perceived to strengthen patient-centered care by improving communication and reducing clinicians' decisional isolation.
- Interviewees emphasized the need for structured evaluation tools combining quantitative and qualitative measures.

## Abstract

Background: Clinical Ethics Consultation (CEC) helps healthcare professionals, patients, and families address ethically complex situations in clinical practice. Since 2016, requests for CEC at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS (FPG) have been entered into the hospital IT system like other consulting services. This has increased both the number of requests and the need to monitor and evaluate the service. Aims: This qualitative study investigates how the CEC service at FPG is perceived in terms of its value, role, and impact, and further aims to identify appropriate strategies for evaluating the service. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals who had used or taken part in the service within the previous two years. Data were examined using reflective thematic analysis, leading to the development of codes and themes. Results: Five main themes emerged: (1) Role and identity of the clinical ethics consultant the, (2) Benefits of CEC for clinical practice, (3) How to evaluate the CEC Service, (4) HCPs’ Evaluation, and (5) CEC Service Improvement Strategies. Participants saw the consultant as an “active third party” who combines ethical, clinical, and communication skills to mediate conflicts, support teamwork, and guide shared care planning. The service was viewed as strengthening patient-centered care by improving communication with patients and families, clarifying treatment proportionality, and reducing clinicians’ decisional isolation. Interviewees emphasized the need for structured evaluation tools that include both quantitative indicators and qualitative feedback. Satisfaction with the service was consistently high, with recommendations to expand consultant availability, improve timeliness, and enhance training. Conclusions: CEC appears to serve as a clinical, relational, and training resource that fosters ethically grounded, collaborative, and person-centered care.