Perceived Benefits of Ethics Consultation Differ by Profession: A Qualitative Survey Study.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2022.2093423
Annie B Friedrich, Elizabeth M Kohlberg, Jay R Malone
{"title":"Perceived Benefits of Ethics Consultation Differ by Profession: A Qualitative Survey Study.","authors":"Annie B Friedrich,&nbsp;Elizabeth M Kohlberg,&nbsp;Jay R Malone","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2022.2093423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There are numerous benefits to ethics consultation services, but little is known about the reasons different professionals may or may not request an ethics consultation. Inter-professional differences in the perceived utility of ethics consultation have not previously been studied.<b>Methods:</b> To understand profession-specific perceived benefits of ethics consultation, we surveyed all employees at an urban tertiary children's hospital about their use of ethics committee services (n = 842).<b>Results:</b> Our findings suggest that nurses and physicians find ethics consultations useful for different reasons; physicians were more likely to report normative benefits, while nurses were more likely to report communicative and relational benefits.<b>Conclusions:</b> These findings support an open model of ethics consultation and may also help ethics committees to better understand consultation requests and remain attuned to the needs of various professional groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"14 1","pages":"50-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2093423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: There are numerous benefits to ethics consultation services, but little is known about the reasons different professionals may or may not request an ethics consultation. Inter-professional differences in the perceived utility of ethics consultation have not previously been studied.Methods: To understand profession-specific perceived benefits of ethics consultation, we surveyed all employees at an urban tertiary children's hospital about their use of ethics committee services (n = 842).Results: Our findings suggest that nurses and physicians find ethics consultations useful for different reasons; physicians were more likely to report normative benefits, while nurses were more likely to report communicative and relational benefits.Conclusions: These findings support an open model of ethics consultation and may also help ethics committees to better understand consultation requests and remain attuned to the needs of various professional groups.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
道德咨询的感知利益因职业而异:一项定性调查研究。
背景:道德咨询服务有很多好处,但人们对不同专业人士可能要求或不要求道德咨询的原因知之甚少。在道德咨询的感知效用方面的专业间差异以前没有被研究过。方法:为了了解职业特定的道德咨询感知收益,我们调查了一家城市三级儿童医院的所有员工对道德委员会服务的使用情况(n = 842)。结果:我们的研究结果表明,护士和医生认为道德咨询有用的原因不同;医生更有可能报告规范性利益,而护士更有可能报告沟通和关系利益。结论:这些发现支持开放式伦理咨询模式,也可以帮助伦理委员会更好地理解咨询请求,并保持与各种专业群体的需求保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1