Dataset Information

Facilitating and motivating factors for reporting reprehensible conduct in care: A study among nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale, aims and objectives

The aims of this study are as follows: (a) to establish whether a relationship exists between the importance that healthcare professionals attach to ethics in care and their likelihood to report reprehensible conduct committed by colleagues, and (b) to assess whether this relationship is moderated by behavioural control targeted at preventing harm.

Method

In this cross-sectional study, which was based on a convenience sample (n = 155) of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) in the Netherlands, we measured ethics advocacy (EA) as a motivating factor (reflecting the importance that healthcare professionals attach to ethics and care) and "behavioral control targeted at preventing harm" (BCPH) as a facilitating factor. "Reporting reprehensible conduct" (RRC) was measured as a context-specific indicator of whistleblowing intentions, consisting of two vignettes describing morally questionable behaviour committed by colleagues.

Results

The propensity to report reprehensible conduct was a function of the interaction between EA and BCPH. The only group for which EA predicted RRC consisted of individuals with above-average levels of perceived BCPH.

Conclusion

The results suggest that the importance that healthcare professionals attach to ethical aspects in care is not sufficient to ensure that they will report reprehensible conduct. Such importance does not induce reporting behaviour unless the professionals also perceive themselves as having a high level of BCPH. We suggest that these insights could be helpful in training healthcare providers to cope with ethical dilemmas that they are likely to encounter in their work.

SUBMITTER: Kuilman L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359255 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesNurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) increasingly practice in emergency departments (EDs), yet limited research has compared their practice patterns with those of physicians.Design, setting and participantsUsing nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we analysed ED visits among NPs/PAs and physicians between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2017. To compare NP/PA and physician utilisation, we estimated propensity score-weighted multivariable regressions adjusted for clinical/sociodemographic variables, including triage acuity score (1=sickest/5=healthiest). Because NPs/PAs may preferentially consult physicians for more complex patients, we performed sensitivity analyses restricting to EDs with >95% of visits including the NP/PA-physician combination.ExposuresNPs/PAs.Main outcome measuresUse of hospitalisations, diagnostic tests, medications, procedures and six low-value services, for example, CT/MRI for uncomplicated headache, based on Choosing Wisely and other practice guidelines.ResultsBefore propensity weighting, we studied visits to 12 410 NPs/PAs-alone, 21 560 to the NP/PA-physician combination and 143 687 to physicians-alone who saw patients with increasing age (41, 45 and 47 years, p<0.001) and worsening triage acuity scores (3.03, 2.85 and 2.67, p<0.001), respectively. After weighting, NPs/PAs-alone used fewer medications (2.62 vs 2.80, p=0.002), diagnostic tests (3.77 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.67 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations (OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.46)) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.80)) than physicians. Contrastingly, the NP/PA-physician combination used more medications (3.08 vs 2.80, p<0.001), diagnostic tests (5.07 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.86 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.51) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 1.23 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.43)) than physicians-results were similar among EDs with >95% of NP/PA visits including the NP/PA-physician combination.Conclusions and relevanceWhile U.S. NPs/PAs-alone used less care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging, the NP/PA-physician combination used more care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging than physicians alone. Findings were reproduced among EDs where nearly all NP/PA visits were collaborative with physicians, suggesting that NPs/PAs seeing more complex patients used more services than physicians alone, but the converse might be true for more straightforward patients.