The interactions of Canadian ethics consultants with health care managers and governing boards during times of crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care organizations can be very complex, and are often the setting for crisis situations. In recent years, Canadian health care organizations have faced large-scale systemic medical errors, a nation-wide generic injectable drug shortage, iatrogenic infectious disease outbreaks, and myriad other crises. These situations often have an ethical component that ethics consultants may be able to address. Organizational leaders such as health care managers and governing boards have responsibilities to oversee and direct the response to crisis situations. This study investigates the nature and degree of involvement of Canadian ethics consultants in such situations. METHODS: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with Canadian ethics consultants to investigate the nature of their interactions with upper-level managers and governing board members in health care organizations, particularly in times of organizational crisis. We used a purposive sampling technique to identify and recruit ethics consultants throughout Canada. RESULTS: We found variability in the interactions between ethics consultants and upper-level managers and governing boards. Some ethics consultants we interviewed did not participate in managing organizational crisis situations. Most ethics consultants reported that they had assisted in the management of some crises and that their participation was usually initiated by managers. Some ethics consultants reported the ability to bring issues to the attention of upper-level managers and indirectly to their governing boards. The interactions between managers and ethics consultants were characterized by varying degrees of collegiality. Ethics consultants reported participating in or chairing working groups, participating in incident management teams, and developing decision-making frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian ethics consultants tend to believe that they have valuable skills to offer in the management of organizational crisis situations. Most of the ethics consultants we interviewed believed that they play an important role in this regard.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".