Ethical conflicts and moral distress experienced by paediatric residents during their training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paediatric residents experience numerous ethical conflicts; some of these are experienced by all paediatricians, while others are specifically related to residency training. It has been reported that medical students often feel that they are placed in positions that compromise their own ethical principles. A study in the United States showed that interns frequently face examples of unethical and/or unprofessional conduct among staff. OBJECTIVES: To identify the ethical conflicts and moral distress experienced by paediatric residents during their training. METHODOLOGY: Data were collected from four focus groups, which were organized according to the four separate years of residency training. Focus groups consisting of four to 10 participants were led by a research assistant. The focus groups were recorded by an audio device and transcribed verbatim; all data that would identify any of the participants or staff were eliminated. Data analysis involved a modified thematic analysis. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario. RESULTS: While residents occasionally face traditional paediatric ethical issues, such as 'do not resuscitate' orders, more often they experience conflicts because of their inexperience and their place in the hierarchy of the medical care team, particularly when there is disagreement between trainees and senior staff. Their ability to deal and cope with these issues changes as they go through their training. Many residents in the first part of their training were more frustrated and confused with ethical conflicts. In these cases, residents found their best support from their peers and other senior residents. Residents in the later years of training seemed more accustomed to ethical issues. Furthermore, almost all of the residents believed that other members of their health care team have acted in an unethical or unprofessional way. CONCLUSION: Paediatric residents experience significant ethical conflicts and moral distress. Understanding these ethical issues will help those responsible for postgraduate medical education to review or revise the ethics curriculum in keeping with the current moral distress experienced by residents, and help to mentor and guide trainees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".