Exploring Moral Distress for Hospital Social Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the concept of moral distress in hospital social work. Moral distress evolves from an ethical dilemma, wherein an individual is unable to implement a course of action perceived to be morally right. Moral distress is an integrity compromising experience, resulting in conflict between one’s personal, professional and organisational values. To our knowledge, no research has been conducted exploring the manifestation of moral distress in hospital social work. Our intention is to describe the concept of moral distress and theorise how this ethical phenomenon transpires in the field of hospital social work. Moral distress likely has unique implications for social work practice, and the way in which hospital policies and institutional structures facilitate such experiences. We will critically examine how moral distress may emerge in social work, explicating the unique situations and occupational factors that are specific to hospital social workers. Naming and addressing moral distress in social work are imperative to develop ethically informed social work practice, policy and education. This can elicit ways in which to mitigate and respond to moral conflict, and create opportunities to promote organisational change and policy reform.
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 | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".