Abstract

As a solution to the current increase in ethical dilemmas in health care, the formation of hospital ethics committees has been proposed by professional organizations, courts, and governmental commissions. A number of hospitals have instituted such multidisciplinary committees to address clinical ethical dilemmas. Few studies have investigated the success of these committees and the impact of the social structure of the committee on its success level. This study examined the relationship between the level of committee success, as expressed by the sum of the activities it undertook, and the level of status and training of the chairperson. It was assumed that a high level of status and a high level of training would increase the level of committee success. ;Following extensive review of the literature on hospital ethics committees, a survey instrument was developed to determine the level of status of the chairperson as expressed by his academic and/or institutional rank, and his level of training as expressed by the number of formal courses completed and by his research and scholarly writing in the area of bioethics. Furthermore, committee success was determined in three areas of committee function: education, guideline and policy development, and case consultation. ;Since former studies suggested that the prevalence of committees is largest among hospitals with 100 or more residents and a major affiliation with a medical school, the test sample consisted of all of these hospitals . The response rate was 83%. The results were based on 137 completed surveys. The first hypothesis underlying this study was not confirmed by the data obtained. On the contrary, committees headed by lower-ranked chairpersons were found to be more successful. The second hypothesis was confirmed. Particularly, engagement in research and scholarly writing in the area of bioethics was found to be important. It was also found that the professional background of the chairperson influences committee success. Committees chaired by physicians were found to be less successful than committees chaired by other professionals, particularly chaplains and bioethicists