Ethical issues experienced by healthcare workers in nursing homes: Literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Ethical issues are increasingly being reported by care-providers; however, little is knownabout the nature of these issues within the nursing home. Ethical issues are unavoidable in healthcareand can result in opportunities for improving work and care conditions; however, they are alsoassociated with detrimental outcomes including staff burnout and moral distress.Objectives: The purpose of this review was to identify prior research which focuses on ethical issues in thenursing home and to explore staffs’ experiences of ethical issues.Methods: Using a systematic approach based on Aveyard (2014), a literature review was conducted whichfocused on ethical and moral issues, nurses and nursing assistants, and the nursing home.Findings: The most salient themes identified in the review included clashing ethical principles, issuesrelated to communication, lack of resources and quality of care provision. The review also identifiedsolutions for overcoming the ethical issues that were identified and revealed the definitional challengesthat permeate this area of work.Conclusions: The review highlighted a need for improved ethics education for care-providers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".