The translation of bedside experience to pedagogical content presents a unique challenge for the field of bioethics. The contributions are multidisciplinary, the practices are heterogeneous, and the work product is characteristically nuanced. While academic bioethics education programs have proliferated, developing content and pedagogy sufficient to teach clinical ethics effectively remains a longstanding challenge. The authors identify three reasons why progress towards this goal has been slow. First, there is a lack of robust, empirical knowledge for education focused on praxis. Second, (...) the methods employed in academic education tend to focus on traditional didactic approaches rather than engendering competency through interaction and practice—the principle means by which clinical ethicists work. Third, the data practitioners have captured has not been presented in a medium educators and students can most meaningfully interact with. In this paper, the authors describe a novel pedagogical tool: the Armstrong Clinical Ethics Coding System (ACECS) and interactive visual analytics dashboard. Together, these components comprise an educational platform that utilizes the empirical data collected by the institution’s ethics service. The tool offers four advantages. First, it aids with the identification of ethical issues that present during a consultation at that specific institution or medical unit by making use of a lingua franca comprehensible to both ethicists and non-ethicists. Second, content is centered on issue frequency, type, and relation to other issues. Iterating through cases, requestors, or hospital units allows one to understand cases typologically and through metanarratives that reveal relationships and subtle patterns. Third, the use of interactive data visualizations and data storytelling aids comprehension and retention. Fourth, the process of using the system necessitates understanding the manifold ways each case can be understood, accommodating a wide range of perspectives and ethical lenses, enhancing case analysis and self-reflection conducive to life-long learning. (shrink)

The fidelity provided by rich, nuanced ethics consult narratives does not proscribe efforts to advance the profession by using data to assess performance and demonstrate value. While these two approaches have been described as in conflict with one another, the former sets the bar to which the latter should aim; to achieve this, consult data should, minimally, do two things: (1) tell the story of the case, as best as possible, in language easily accessible to both ethicists and non-ethicists alike; (...) and (2) do so in a way that elements of interest can be aggregated, disambiguated, and analyzed. Here we present a three-component system designed with that in mind.First, the Armstrong Clinical Ethics Coding System (ACECS) produces a set of six codes that tell a simplified story of the case. These six codes form a meta narrative, which, like meta data, can be aggregated, disambiguated, and analyzed. Second, we use a data model to uncover the stories those data tell. The results allow us to understand relationships, recognize patterns, and reveal insights that are otherwise not discoverable when using narratives alone. Third, due to tremendous heterogeneity among cases, we represent findings visually using techniques borrowed from data storytelling, a powerful means to demonstrate the value of a consult service to administrators and others. The ability to derive meta narratives from an aggregate of case narratives allows us to describe, in detail, the work of our consult service in a manner directly comparable to other services that use the system while we preserve unprecedented case-level nuance. If adopted broadly, this functionality suggests a means to undergird the legitimacy of the ethics consult practice itself in an evidence-based manner similar to that which undergirds other domains of healthcare. (shrink)

As James Harold notes in his generous and thoughtful commentary on Artistic Creation and Ethical Criticism (ACEC) (2020), there is much on which we agree, inclu.