In the digital health era, collegiality as an ethical resource against healthcare professionals’ loneliness

R. Chvetzoff , G. Chvetzoff , J.-C. Mino , É. Lucchi , É. Jacquier , C. Bouleuc
{"title":"In the digital health era, collegiality as an ethical resource against healthcare professionals’ loneliness","authors":"R. Chvetzoff ,&nbsp;G. Chvetzoff ,&nbsp;J.-C. Mino ,&nbsp;É. Lucchi ,&nbsp;É. Jacquier ,&nbsp;C. Bouleuc","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2024.100977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>During Covid waves, the management of hospital overload, selection of patients admitted to intensive care, isolation of the general population, revealed the importance of political and economic choices, explicit or not, which involve our entire society. The current degraded functioning of the hospital system in various western countries has accentuated social tensions that are at the origin of a real existential suffering felt by all.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>Our hypothesis that in the post-Covid 19 era, two mains ethical issues raised for health care professionals: the risk of healthcare professionals’ loneliness and the impact of digital technology on the medical decision-making process.</p></div><div><h3>Results/discussion</h3><p>First, we discuss the loneliness according Arendt's philosophy, in which loneliness extinguishes all capacity for initiative and action and meaning losing the link with patient and other healthcare professional. Second, we explain how that digital technology is a risk for clinical intelligence and the healthcare relationship, producing a process of disappearance of the heart of care by substituting the action of a care shared with others to a form of doing that has become essentially operational. Then, we argue that debate and collegiality, which means deciding together by consensus and based on reflection, is essential to prevent these risks.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion/perspectives</h3><p>Clinical ethics must foster multidisciplinary discussions in the decision-making process and restore the ability of caregivers to decide, at the origin of collective action in care.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"32 ","pages":"Article 100977"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552524000124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

During Covid waves, the management of hospital overload, selection of patients admitted to intensive care, isolation of the general population, revealed the importance of political and economic choices, explicit or not, which involve our entire society. The current degraded functioning of the hospital system in various western countries has accentuated social tensions that are at the origin of a real existential suffering felt by all.

Methodology

Our hypothesis that in the post-Covid 19 era, two mains ethical issues raised for health care professionals: the risk of healthcare professionals’ loneliness and the impact of digital technology on the medical decision-making process.

Results/discussion

First, we discuss the loneliness according Arendt's philosophy, in which loneliness extinguishes all capacity for initiative and action and meaning losing the link with patient and other healthcare professional. Second, we explain how that digital technology is a risk for clinical intelligence and the healthcare relationship, producing a process of disappearance of the heart of care by substituting the action of a care shared with others to a form of doing that has become essentially operational. Then, we argue that debate and collegiality, which means deciding together by consensus and based on reflection, is essential to prevent these risks.

Conclusion/perspectives

Clinical ethics must foster multidisciplinary discussions in the decision-making process and restore the ability of caregivers to decide, at the origin of collective action in care.

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
在数字医疗时代,同事关系是消除医护人员孤独感的道德资源
背景在科维德浪潮期间,医院超负荷的管理、重症监护病人的选择、普通人群的隔离,都揭示了政治和经济选择的重要性,无论这些选择是否明确,都涉及到我们的整个社会。我们的假设是,在后科维德 19 时代,医护人员面临两大伦理问题:医护人员的孤独风险和数字技术对医疗决策过程的影响。结果/讨论首先,我们根据阿伦特的哲学思想讨论了孤独感,孤独感会使人丧失所有的主动性和行动能力,意味着失去与病人和其他医护人员的联系。其次,我们解释了数字技术是如何对临床智能和医疗保健关系构成风险的,它通过将与他人共享的护理行动替代为一种本质上已成为操作的行为形式,产生了一个护理核心消失的过程。然后,我们认为,辩论和共事精神,也就是在反思的基础上达成共识,共同做出决定,对于预防这些风险至关重要。结论/展望临床伦理学必须在决策过程中促进多学科讨论,恢复护理人员的决策能力,这是护理工作中集体行动的起源。
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
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.
期刊最新文献
No reward without responsibility: Focus on peer review reports The human body and the body elements—Conditions for their use in genetics under the French bioethics law and beyond A retrospective cohort study on lung cancer screening methods in Japan and the US The Kussmaul sign in Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1564) Ethical reflections on healthy aging
×
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