MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2460545393 · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-15-00645.1

Ethics M&Ms: Toward a Recognition of Ethics in Everyday Practice

2016· article· en· W2460545393 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan Snelgrove, Stella Ng, Karen Devon

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Graduate Medical Education · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueEthics in medical practice
Établissements canadiensThe Wilson CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCurriculumMedicineNursing ethicsMedical educationPatient safetyInformation ethicsQuality (philosophy)Engineering ethicsPsychologyHealth carePolitical sciencePedagogyLawEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

High-quality care for surgical patients demands proficiency in ethics. Surgeons face obvious ethical dilemmas, such as disclosure of operative error, as well as other routine aspects of care requiring consideration of ethics, such as the introduction of novel surgical techniques. Failing to address the ethics inherent in these interactions can decrease the quality of care. Deficiencies have been noted in ethics education during surgical residency, due to a primary focus on the scientific and technical aspects of surgery, time constraints, perceived lack of faculty expertise and/or support, and a view of ethics as peripheral to the learning agenda. Currently, ethics education in surgery relies on chance encounters and the hidden curriculum. In its stead, we propose that ethics be incorporated into the curriculum in a substantive way to prepare learners to recognize and respond properly to ethical challenges.Three years ago, ethics morbidity and mortality rounds (Ethics M&Ms) were introduced into regularly scheduled M&Ms at 5 sites in the Division of General Surgery at the University of Toronto in Canada. M&M rounds are a time-honored institution in surgical culture, used to analyze and improve surgical errors, and traditionally have focused on technical errors and complications. In surgical M&Ms, every complication, no matter how common, is examined. Ethics M&Ms consist of 30 minutes per month during which ethics issues surrounding care are the complication being discussed. The scope of these issues is wide and has included belief in miracles, surgical innovation, “VIP” patients, and operating room resource allocation.Our intervention was inspired by Ethics M&Ms at the University of Chicago. While “ethics rounds” are an accepted way to discuss ethics, the novelty of this intervention is the integration of these rounds into a well-attended, well-respected institution within surgical culture. Explicitly scheduling and discussing ethics during M&Ms encourages regular reflection on ethics. Further, central placement of ethics education within the culture of surgery legitimizes the recognition of ethical dilemmas. Bioethics is commonly criticized as abstract and impractical. By grounding discussion in real cases, using an explicit framework, and citing literature rather than opinions, ethical issues become relevant and more valuable.To start, a resident prepares each case with a surgeon mentor to identify informative literature sources and review key points. Presentation and discussion follow an established framework adapted from the book Clinical Ethics by Jonsen and Siegler. Mentorship skills simply involve an interest in bioethics as it relates to surgical practice, and the ability to perform a literature search. Presentation styles have been adapted to fit the existing M&M model at each site and range from formal slides to a roundtable discussion. A faculty member moderates the confidential discussion. Participants include learners of multiple levels, various health disciplines, and practicing surgeons.The table shows preliminary findings from a qualitative study involving interviews with Ethics M&Ms learners and faculty. The findings suggest a reconceptualization of clinically based ethics in both practicing physicians and residents, enabled by (1) increasing awareness of the ethics inherent in all aspects of patient care; (2) developing a common language to discuss ethics issues; and (3) creating a safe physical and intellectual space to debrief these difficult cases.Due to positive reception at the 5 pilot sites, we plan to institute these rounds in surgical specialties at several community and academic teaching sites. We expect that a formal, case-based, scheduled discussion of ethics issues will influence learners' moral development and capacity to respond to ethically important moments in practice. In particular, Ethics M&Ms broaden learners' approach to ethical reasoning by fostering the ability to identify ethical tensions, increasing available resources for dealing with these tensions, and changing surgical culture to promote explicit, open discussion of ethically complex events. All disciplines of medicine require ethics proficiency. Our innovation is feasible, easily replicable, and promising. We hope Ethics M&Ms will become a model for ethics education that can be expanded into departments locally and internationally.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,078
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,741
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche, Intégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,807
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0780,741
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,020
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,447
Tête enseignante GPT0,600
Écart entre enseignants0,153 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Graduate Medical EducationMême sujetEthics in medical practiceTravaux en français237 207