"Background. Clinical ethics consultation has been implemented in many health care institutions. Different methods exist for their evaluation. In this paper we present findings from an evaluation of 21 documentation conducted 2019-2020 by means of the Ethics Consultation Quality Assessment Tool (ECQAT). The applicability of the instrument was analyzed based on a) duration of use, b) ease of use, c) comprehensibility of the items. Results. On average, the analysis with the ECQAT takes 11 minutes per protocol. The greatest difficulties in applying the ECQAT arise a) in assessing the counselling-related information and b) in assessing the ethical analysis as well as the recommendations. Here, different demands on the level of detail of the information may lead to different assessments. Furthermore, the transitions of the ethical analysis and the recommendations, which are relevant for the assessment, could not be delimited exactly in parts of the protocols. Discussion. The assessment of documentation represents a limited part of the quality of ethics consultation. In particular, the quality dimensions of the EQAT do not map communicative elements of process quality, which are essential components (if not the core) of ethics consultations. Moreover, the assessment is strongly depending on the format of the protocols, which, depending on the institution, range from a brief overview of the results to a detailed account. Even in light of aforementioned limitations the ECQAT provides an incentive to improve the process quality of (documented) ethics consultation. "
"Allocation of health resources towards the treatment of patients with COVID-19 may affect the quality of care for non-COVID-19 patients. Several medical societies representing cancer health professionals have issued statements on priority setting in cancer care in the wake of the Sars-CoV-2 outbreak (1, 2). However, there is a lack of empirical data on how resources are prioritized in cancer care and which criteria are taken into consideration by those involved in decision making. In this paper we will present findings from qualitative interviews conducted with oncologists in Germany between February and July 2021. Transcripts of interviews are analysed following principles of qualitative content analysis based on Kuckartz (3). According to preliminary analysis of the first five interviews conducted three major topics emerge: 1. Experiences with scarcity regarding selected diagnostic procedures and treatment. 2. Material and procedural criteria for priority setting and decisions on deviations of standards of care. 3. Effects of priority setting on coping and psycho-social support. We will discuss findings with regards to their possible contribution to an empirical and normative founded guidance for priority setting in cancer care in times of Sars-CoV-2 outbreak and comparable events. 1. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Onkologie. Coronavirus-Infektion (COVID-19) bei Patienten mit Blut- und rebserkrankungen. https://www.onkopedia.com/de/onkopedia/guidelines/coronavirus-infektion-covid-19-bei-patient-innen-mit-blut-und-krebserkrankungen/@@guideline/html/index.html 2. Marron JM, Joffe S, Jagsi R et al. Ethics and Resource Scarcity: ASCO Recommendations for the Oncology Community During the COVID19 Pandemic. J Clin Onc. April 28 2020, doi:10.1200/JCO.20.00960 3. Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computer¬unterstützung (4th ed.). Beltz Juventa. "
