Ethical religion in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Torry M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5537594 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Since 1997, nursing ethics research has focused on solving ethical dilemmas, enhancing decision-making strategies, and introducing professional education. Few studies describe the triggers of ethical dilemmas among primary care nurses. The aim of this study was to explore the moral distress and ethical dilemmas among primary care nurses. A scoping review was performed following Arskey and O'Malley's framework. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus were searched systematically to retrieve relevant titles and abstracts. A temporal filter was applied to focus on the most recent literature (years of 2010-2020). The research was completed on 17 November 2020. Of 184 articles retrieved, 15 were included in the review. Some (n = 7) studies had a qualitative design, and the most productive country was Brazil (n = 7). The total number of nurses involved in quantitative studies was 1137 (range: 36-433); the total number of nurses involved in qualitative studies was 144 (range: 7-73). Three main focus areas were identified: (a) frequent ethical conflicts and moral distress episodes among nurses working in primary care settings; (b) frequent moral distress measures here employed; (c) coping strategies here adopted to prevent or manage moral distress. Further research is needed to examine the differences between moral distress triggers and sources of ethical dilemmas among the different care environments, such as primary care and acute care settings.
| S-EPMC8303154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:This paper explores ethical concerns arising in healthcare integration. We argue that integration is necessary imperative for meeting contemporary and future healthcare challenges, a far stronger evidence base for the conditions of its effectiveness is required. In particular, given the increasing emphasis at the policy level for the entire healthcare infrastructure to become better integrated, our analysis of the ethical challenges that follow from the logic of integration itself is timely and important and has hitherto received insufficient attention. METHODS:We evaluated an educational intervention which aims to improve child health outcomes by making transitions between primary to secondary care more efficient, ensuring children and parents are better supported throughout. The programme provided skills for trainee paediatricians and general practitioners (GPs) in co-designing integrated clinical services. RESULTS:The key ethical challenges of integrated care that arose from a clinical perspective are: professional identity and autonomy in an integrated working environment; the concomitant extent of professional responsibility in such an environment; and the urgent need for more evidence to be produced on which strategies for integrating at scale can be based. CONCLUSIONS:From our analysis we suggest a tentative way forward, viewed from a normative position broadly situated at the intersection of deontology and care ethics. We adopt this position because the primary clinical ethical issues in the context of integrated care concern: how to ensure that all duties of care to individual patients are met in a newly orientated working environment where clinical responsibility may be ambiguous; and the need to orientate care around the patient by foregrounding their autonomous preferences and ensuring good patient clinician relationships in clinical decision-making.
| S-EPMC6610833 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs), nurses and informal caregivers are often jointly involved in healthcare situations in which ethical issues play an important role.ObjectivesTo describe ethical problems from the perspective of these three groups and to investigate whether there is a common experience of ethical issues in primary care.MethodsWe conducted six focus groups with general practitioners, nurses and informal caregivers in Germany. We asked the participants to describe at least one experience of ethical problem in detail and documented the findings by an illustration software that visualized and structured the discussion. We used thematic analysis to identify ethical problems and to develop categories of ethical issues.ResultsProblems reported barely overlapped. GPs had to do mainly with uncertainty about the scope and limits of their responsibility for patients. Nurses were concerned about bureaucratic and other barriers to professional care and about dual loyalty if they had to consider the conflicting interests of patients and family members. They often felt powerless and unable to act according to their professional standards. Informal caregivers reported problems that resulted from role strain and being both a family member and a caregiver. GPs, nurses and informal caregivers sometimes perceived the other parties as a source of ethical problems.ConclusionsAll parties may benefit from ethics support services, a rarity in German primary care so far. Furthermore, nurses' self-confidence towards GPs, demanding patients and family members has to be strengthened. Informal caregivers, the most vulnerable group, need more attendance and tailored support.
| S-EPMC6425460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic uncertainty (DU) in primary care is ubiquitous, yet no review has specifically examined its communication, or the associated ethical issues.ObjectivesTo identify what is known about the communication of DU in primary care and the associated ethical issues.MethodsSystematic review, critical interpretive synthesis and ethical analysis of primary research published worldwide. Medline, Embase, Web of Science and SCOPUS were searched for papers from 1988 to 2020 relating to primary care AND diagnostic uncertainty AND [ethics OR behaviours OR communication]. Critical interpretive synthesis and ethical analysis were applied to data extracted.ResultsSixteen papers met inclusion criteria. Although DU is inherent in primary care, its communication is often limited. Evidence on the effects of communicating DU to patients is mixed; research on patient perspectives of DU is lacking. The empirical literature is significantly limited by inconsistencies in how DU is defined and measured. No primary ethical analysis was identified; secondary analysis of the included papers identified ethical issues relating to maintaining patient autonomy in the face of clinical uncertainty, a gap in considering the direct effects of (not) communicating DU on patients, and considerations regarding over-investigation and justice.ConclusionsThis review highlights significant gaps in the literature: there is a need for explicit ethical and patient-centred empirical analyses on the effects of communicating DU, and research directly examining patient preferences for this communication. Consensus on how DU should be defined, and greater research into tools for its measurement, would help to strengthen the empirical evidence base.
| S-EPMC8463813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With finite resources, healthcare payers must make difficult choices regarding spending and the ethical distribution of funds. Here, we describe some of the ethical issues surrounding inequity in healthcare in nine major European countries, using cancer care as an example. To identify relevant studies, we conducted a systematic literature search. The results of the literature review suggest that although prevention, access to early diagnosis, and radiotherapy are key factors associated with good outcomes in oncology, public and political attention often focusses on the availability of pharmacological treatments. In some countries this focus may divert funding towards cancer drugs, for example through specific cancer drugs funds, leading to reduced expenditure on other areas of cancer care, including prevention, and potentially on other diseases. In addition, as highly effective, expensive agents are developed, the use of value-based approaches may lead to unacceptable impacts on health budgets, leading to a potential need to re-evaluate current cost-effectiveness thresholds. We anticipate that the question of how to fund new therapies equitably will become even more challenging in the future, with the advent of expensive, innovative, breakthrough treatments in other therapeutic areas.
| S-EPMC5343076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ChatGPT has promising applications in health care, but potential ethical issues need to be addressed proactively to prevent harm. ChatGPT presents potential ethical challenges from legal, humanistic, algorithmic, and informational perspectives. Legal ethics concerns arise from the unclear allocation of responsibility when patient harm occurs and from potential breaches of patient privacy due to data collection. Clear rules and legal boundaries are needed to properly allocate liability and protect users. Humanistic ethics concerns arise from the potential disruption of the physician-patient relationship, humanistic care, and issues of integrity. Overreliance on artificial intelligence (AI) can undermine compassion and erode trust. Transparency and disclosure of AI-generated content are critical to maintaining integrity. Algorithmic ethics raise concerns about algorithmic bias, responsibility, transparency and explainability, as well as validation and evaluation. Information ethics include data bias, validity, and effectiveness. Biased training data can lead to biased output, and overreliance on ChatGPT can reduce patient adherence and encourage self-diagnosis. Ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and validity of ChatGPT-generated content requires rigorous validation and ongoing updates based on clinical practice. To navigate the evolving ethical landscape of AI, AI in health care must adhere to the strictest ethical standards. Through comprehensive ethical guidelines, health care professionals can ensure the responsible use of ChatGPT, promote accurate and reliable information exchange, protect patient privacy, and empower patients to make informed decisions about their health care.
| S-EPMC10457697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccountable care organizations (ACOs) are proliferating as a solution to the cost crisis in American health care, and already involve as many as 31 million patients. ACOs hold clinicians, group practices, and in many circumstances hospitals financially accountable for reducing expenditures and improving their patients' health outcomes. The structure of health care affects the ethical issues arising in the practice of medicine; therefore, like all health care organizational structures, ACOs will experience ethical challenges. No framework exists to assist key ACO stakeholders in identifying or managing these challenges.MethodsWe conducted a structured review of the medical ACO literature using qualitative content analysis to inform identification of ethical challenges for ACOs.ResultsOur analysis found infrequent discussion of ethics as an explicit concern for ACOs. Nonetheless, we identified nine critical ethical challenges, often described in other terms, for ACO stakeholders. Leaders could face challenges regarding fair resource allocation (e.g., about fairly using ACOs' shared savings), protection of professionals' ethical obligations (especially related to the design of financial incentives), and development of fair decision processes (e.g., ensuring that beneficiary representatives on the ACO board truly represent the ACO's patients). Clinicians could perceive threats to their professional autonomy (e.g., through cost control measures), a sense of dual or conflicted responsibility to their patients and the ACO, or competition with other clinicians. For patients, critical ethical challenges will include protecting their autonomy, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, and effectively engaging them with the ACO.DiscussionACOs are not inherently more or less "ethical" than other health care payment models, such as fee-for-service or pure capitation. ACOs' nascent development and flexibility in design, however, present a time-sensitive opportunity to ensure their ethical operation, promote their success, and refine their design and implementation by identifying, managing, and conducting research into the ethical issues they might face.
| S-EPMC4175644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The relationship between religion and morality has long been hotly debated. Does religion make us more moral? Is it necessary for morality? Do moral inclinations emerge independently of religious intuitions? These debates, which nowadays rumble on in scientific journals as well as in public life, have frequently been marred by a series of conceptual confusions and limitations. Many scientific investigations have failed to decompose "religion" and "morality" into theoretically grounded elements; have adopted parochial conceptions of key concepts-in particular, sanitized conceptions of "prosocial" behavior; and have neglected to consider the complex interplay between cognition and culture. We argue that to make progress, the categories "religion" and "morality" must be fractionated into a set of biologically and psychologically cogent traits, revealing the cognitive foundations that shape and constrain relevant cultural variants. We adopt this fractionating strategy, setting out an encompassing evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant evidence. Our goals are twofold: to produce a detailed picture of the current state of the field, and to provide a road map for future research on the relationship between religion and morality.
| S-EPMC4345965 | biostudies-other
Project description:Rationing in health care is controversial, and even more so in pediatrics. Children are an inherently vulnerable group because they are reliant on their parents and caregivers to make decisions in their best interests and have no political voice. Historically, there has been general acceptance of the need to ration healthcare at a systems level, however there is controversy over whether healthcare professionals should be involved in rationing at the bedside. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted that bedside rationing is unavoidable, at least in times of extreme resource scarcity. Internationally, there has been significant ethical analysis and guideline development to guide intensive care rationing decisions in the event that resources are overwhelmed. This paper explores the principles underlying distributive justice in healthcare rationing and discusses how these were operationalized in ethical guidelines for the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, rationing is unavoidable and occurs constantly in everyday nursing and medical ICU practice, often in mundane and uncontroversial ways. Some argue that these everyday decisions are not true rationing decisions, but resource allocation, or stewardship decisions. We argue there are no clear lines between resource allocation and rationing decisions, rather that they occur on a spectrum. These everyday rationing decisions are particularly susceptible to personal biases that are often implicit. Due to the subtle and constant nature of most everyday rationing decisions, specific guideline development will rarely be practical or appropriate. However, it is possible to develop other processes to improve decision making. There are a variety of strategies we recommend for this including, encouraging reflective practice; developing explicit frameworks that promote collaborative decision making; being transparent about resource allocation and rationing decisions with colleagues, patients, and families; and promoting a workplace culture of speaking up and accessing support in identifying and managing everyday rationing decisions.
| S-EPMC8578748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used for prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Despite the potential for AI to improve care, ethical concerns and mistrust in AI-enabled healthcare exist among the public and medical community. Given the rapid and transformative recent growth of AI in cardiovascular care, to inform practice guidelines and regulatory policies that facilitate ethical and trustworthy use of AI in medicine, we conducted a literature review to identify key ethical and trust barriers and facilitators from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives when using AI in cardiovascular care. In this rapid literature review, we searched six bibliographic databases to identify publications discussing transparency, trust, or ethical concerns (outcomes of interest) associated with AI-based medical devices (interventions of interest) in the context of cardiovascular care from patients', caregivers', or healthcare providers' perspectives. The search was completed on May 24, 2022 and was not limited by date or study design. After reviewing 7,925 papers from six databases and 3,603 papers identified through citation chasing, 145 articles were included. Key ethical concerns included privacy, security, or confidentiality issues (n = 59, 40.7%); risk of healthcare inequity or disparity (n = 36, 24.8%); risk of patient harm (n = 24, 16.6%); accountability and responsibility concerns (n = 19, 13.1%); problematic informed consent and potential loss of patient autonomy (n = 17, 11.7%); and issues related to data ownership (n = 11, 7.6%). Major trust barriers included data privacy and security concerns, potential risk of patient harm, perceived lack of transparency about AI-enabled medical devices, concerns about AI replacing human aspects of care, concerns about prioritizing profits over patients' interests, and lack of robust evidence related to the accuracy and limitations of AI-based medical devices. Ethical and trust facilitators included ensuring data privacy and data validation, conducting clinical trials in diverse cohorts, providing appropriate training and resources to patients and healthcare providers and improving their engagement in different phases of AI implementation, and establishing further regulatory oversights. This review revealed key ethical concerns and barriers and facilitators of trust in AI-enabled medical devices from patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives. Successful integration of AI into cardiovascular care necessitates implementation of mitigation strategies. These strategies should focus on enhanced regulatory oversight on the use of patient data and promoting transparency around the use of AI in patient care.
| S-EPMC11373417 | biostudies-literature