James M DuBois1, Emily E Anderson2, John T Chibnall3. 1. Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette Ave, Salus Building, St. Louis, MO 63104. 2. Loyola University of Chicago. 3. Saint Louis University.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wrongdoing among physicians and researchers causes myriad problems for patients and research participants. While many articles have been published on professional wrongdoing, our literature review found no studies that examined the rich contextual details of large sets of historical cases of wrongdoing. METHODS: We examined 100 cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research using historiometric methods, which involve the statistical description and analysis of coded historical narratives. We used maximum variation, criterion-based sampling to identify cases involving 29 kinds of wrongdoing contained in a taxonomy of wrongdoing developed for the project. We coded the presence of a variety of environmental and wrongdoer variables and rated the severity of wrongdoing found in each case. This approach enabled us to (a) produce rich descriptions of variables characterizing cases; (b) identify factors influencing the severity of wrongdoing; and (c) test the hypothesis that professional wrongdoing is a unified, relatively homogenous phenomenon such as "organizational deviance." RESULTS: Some variables were consistently found across cases (e.g., wrongdoers were male and cases lasted more than 2 years), and some variables were consistently absent across cases (e.g., cases did not involve wrongdoers who were mistreated by institutions or penalized for doing what is right). However, we also found that some variables associated with wrongdoing in research (such as ambiguous legal and ethical norms) differ from those associated with wrongdoing in healthcare delivery (such as wrongdoers with a significant history of professional misbehavior). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier intervention from colleagues might help prevent the pattern we observed of repeated wrongdoing across multiple years. While some variables characterize the vast majority of highly publicized cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research-regardless of the kind of wrongdoing-it is important to examine and compare sets of relatively homogenous cases in order to identify factors associated with wrongdoing.
BACKGROUND: Wrongdoing among physicians and researchers causes myriad problems for patients and research participants. While many articles have been published on professional wrongdoing, our literature review found no studies that examined the rich contextual details of large sets of historical cases of wrongdoing. METHODS: We examined 100 cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research using historiometric methods, which involve the statistical description and analysis of coded historical narratives. We used maximum variation, criterion-based sampling to identify cases involving 29 kinds of wrongdoing contained in a taxonomy of wrongdoing developed for the project. We coded the presence of a variety of environmental and wrongdoer variables and rated the severity of wrongdoing found in each case. This approach enabled us to (a) produce rich descriptions of variables characterizing cases; (b) identify factors influencing the severity of wrongdoing; and (c) test the hypothesis that professional wrongdoing is a unified, relatively homogenous phenomenon such as "organizational deviance." RESULTS: Some variables were consistently found across cases (e.g., wrongdoers were male and cases lasted more than 2 years), and some variables were consistently absent across cases (e.g., cases did not involve wrongdoers who were mistreated by institutions or penalized for doing what is right). However, we also found that some variables associated with wrongdoing in research (such as ambiguous legal and ethical norms) differ from those associated with wrongdoing in healthcare delivery (such as wrongdoers with a significant history of professional misbehavior). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier intervention from colleagues might help prevent the pattern we observed of repeated wrongdoing across multiple years. While some variables characterize the vast majority of highly publicized cases of wrongdoing in healthcare delivery and research-regardless of the kind of wrongdoing-it is important to examine and compare sets of relatively homogenous cases in order to identify factors associated with wrongdoing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Professionalism; medical ethics; misconduct; organizational deviance; professional misbehavior; research ethics
Authors: Erin D Solomon; Heidi Walsh; Meredith Parsons; Tristan McIntosh; Jessica Mozersky; James M DuBois Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2021
Authors: James M DuBois; Emily E Anderson; John Chibnall; Kelly Carroll; Tyler Gibb; Chiji Ogbuka; Timothy Rubbelke Journal: Account Res Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.622