Literature DB >> 8798940

Ethical reasoning in mixed nurse-physician groups.

S Holm1, P Gjersøe, G Grode, O Hartling, K E Ibsen, H Marcussen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To study the ethical reasoning of nurses and physicians, and to assess whether or not modified focus groups are a valuable tool for this purpose.
DESIGN: Discussion of cases in modified focus groups, each consisting of three physicians and three nurses. The discussion was taped and analysed by content analysis.
SETTING: Five departments of internal medicine at Danish hospitals. SAMPLE: Seven discussion groups. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Ethical content of statements, style of statements, time used by each participant.
RESULTS: Danish physicians and nurses do not differ in the kind of ethical reasoning they use, but physicians use more of the discussion time than nurses, they use a more assertive style of argumentation, and the solutions chosen are usually first put forward by physicians.
CONCLUSION: The results and informal comparisons with similar data from long qualitative interviews indicate that groups of this kind are a useful tool for gathering data on ethical reasoning.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioethics and Professional Ethics; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8798940      PMCID: PMC1376982          DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.3.168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  1 in total

1.  Facilitating healthcare ethics research: assessment of moral reasoning and moral orientation from a single interview.

Authors:  D J Self; J D Skeel
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.284

  1 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Eliciting reasons: empirical methods in priority setting.

Authors:  Andreas Hasman
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2003-03

2.  Patterns of medical and nursing staff communication in nursing homes: implications and insights from complexity science.

Authors:  Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Natalie Ammarell; Donald Bailey; Kirsten Corazzini; Deborah Lekan-Rutledge; Mary L Piven; Queen Utley-Smith; Ruth A Anderson
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2006-02

3.  Dialogic Consensus In Clinical Decision-Making.

Authors:  Paul Walker; Terry Lovat
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 1.352

4.  How physicians face ethical difficulties: a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  S A Hurst; S C Hull; G DuVal; M Danis
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Priority setting in Indigenous health: assessing priority setting process and criteria that should guide the health system to improve Indigenous Australian health.

Authors:  Michael E Otim; Margaret Kelaher; Ian P Anderson; Chris M Doran
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2014-06-07

6.  Ethics in the interface between multidisciplinary teams: a narrative in stages for inter-professional education.

Authors:  Katherine Wiles; Nawal Bahal; Hilary Engward; Andrew Papanikitas
Journal:  London J Prim Care (Abingdon)       Date:  2016-10-24
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.