The Influence of Teams, Supervisors and Organizations on Healthcare Practitioners' Abilities to Practise Ethically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare practitioners make many important ethical decisions in their day-to-day practices. Questions arising in daily practice require practitioners to make prudent, balanced and good decisions, which are most effectively made interpersonally and reflectively. It is commonly assumed that the team-based structure of healthcare delivery can provide practitioners with the support needed to address ethical questions in their practice, especially if the team involves multidisciplinary collaboration. A phenomenological study was conducted in which the impact of the team and the larger organization on practitioners' experiences of dealing with moral challenges was uncovered. Various mental healthcare professionals shared their experiences of ethically challenging situations in their practices and described the ways in which their teammates and supervisors affected how they faced these troubling situations. These findings allow us to see that there is considerable room for healthcare managers, many of whom are nurses, to facilitate supportive, ethical environments for healthcare professionals. An understanding of the essential experience of practising ethically allows for an appreciation of the significance of the team's role in supporting it and enables healthcare managers to target support for ethical healthcare work.
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 | 0.004 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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".