MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2761634636 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.suppl_a.52ab

110 Pediatric Postgraduate Residents' Perceptions of Ethical Dilemmas during their Training

2004· article· en· W2761634636 sur OpenAlexaffabout
RI Hilliard, Christine Harrison, Shannon Madden

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThematic analysisFocus groupMedical educationCompromisePerceptionBioethicsPsychologyEthical codeQualitative researchData collectionCoding (social sciences)Ethical issuesMedicineEngineering ethicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Pediatric residents face numerous ethical dilemmas. Some of the ethical issues they face are experienced by all pediatricians, and other issues are specifically related to resident training. It has been found that medical students often feel they are placed in positions which compromise their own ethical principles or feel that have been harassed or abused in their training. A US study showed that residents frequently face examples of unethical and/or unprofessional conduct amongst staff and further, the residents did not know how to respond to these issues. There is, however, little description of the ethical dilemmas facing Canadian postgraduate trainees. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe in more detail the ethical dilemmas perceived by pediatric residents in their training program. Qualitative research methods were used to study the lived experience of pediatric residents. Data collection consisted of four focus groups organized according to the four separate years of residency training. Focus groups consisted of 4–10 participants, and were led by a research assistant from the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics. The focus groups were audio taped and transcribed verbatim eliminating all data that would identify any of the participants or staff mentioned. Data analysis involved a modified thematic analysis in two steps: first in open coding and then by identifying chunks of data that relate to a concept or idea. For example, power relationships, communication issue, lack of training were three of the codes used to identify data. While residents occasionally face the traditional pediatric ethical issues such as “do not resuscitate” and “demands for futile treatment”, more often they face dilemmas due to the hierarchy of the medical care team, and these often on a daily basis. Their ability to deal and cope with these issues change as they go through their training. Many residents in the first part of their training were more frustrated and confused with ethical issues, how to address them with others or how to deal with them on their own. In these cases, residents found their best support from their peers and other senior residents. Residents in the later years of training seem more accustomed to ethical issues and did not view them quite as significant as their juniors. Common to all residents was the disconnection with senior physicians and fellows. Many felt that both staff physicians and fellows were unapproachable, over directive and in some cases accusatory. Residents at all levels of training have felt that their own moral principles have been compromised, but were unsure how to deal with this, and most dealt with it inwardly. Further, almost all residents felt that other members of their health care team have acted in an unethical or unprofessional way, and that there was no way to manage with this. Pediatric residents face serious ethical dilemmas. Understanding these ethical dilemmas will help those responsible for postgraduate medical education (a) to review or revise the ethics curriculum in keeping with the current ethical dilemmas faced by residents and (b) to mentor and guide trainees.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,071

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,035
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,006
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,348
Écart entre enseignants0,309 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
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

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareTravaux en français237 207