Martine Kruijtbosch

147 Mo ra l case de l i be ra t i on 3 Decision- making Step 8 - Conducting dialogical inquiry on similarities and differences Aim: To examine the similarities and differences in moral judgments, considerations and values between the participants as formulated in step 7. The focus is on understanding one’s own and others’ viewpoints. Step 9 - Concluding (harvesting) Aim: To conclude the findings of the MCD session. In prospective cases, the aim may also be to make a plan of action or communicating how the dilemma will be handled and by whom. Step 10 - Evaluating Aim: To jointly evaluate the MCD session, including the dialogue, atmosphere, results and facilitator. Pilot First, a pilot MCD session was performed with four pharmacists plus the CP. It was split into two videoconferences: a 15-min videoconference to introduce all participants and test the videoconference system and the two-hour MCD videoconference itself. MK moderated the pilot MCD session with the second facilitator EvL and AF, also a member of the research team, as listeners. The facilitator used a shared screen within Microsoft Teams as a flipchart. The flipchart is an important tool to keep the group focused on the same facts of the case, as these are formulated by the CP and based on what has been said during the deliberation in the different methodical steps. Moreover, the flipchart helps to delay participants’ thought processes and stimulates short and precise formulation. All participants received the descriptions of the profession’s core values beforehand in their mailboxes. In 2012 the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP) adopted a Charter defining these professional values. 37 Recently , the descriptions of these values were customised for community pharmacists (see Chapter 2.2. and Box 2 with the descriptions of the customised values). 38 The pilot was not transcribed, but the content and process were jointly evaluated by MK, EvL and AF directly after the session. The pilot MCD session indicated two problems. First, the discussion in steps 1–3 was limited. This may have been caused by the videoconferencing medium as well as the order and duration of the first three methodical steps. Second, not enough time was left for the dialogue about the participants’ moral judgments and decisions in steps 8 and 9. To solve these problems, the facilitator manual for the MCD sessions was adjusted as follows: (1) the time slots of the first three steps were shortened, (2) step 4 (asking clarification