Case Managers on the Front Lines of Ethical Dilemmas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to examine how case managers are routinely confronted by ethical dilemmas within a fragmented health care system and given the reality of financial pressures that influence life-changing decisions. The Code of Professional Conduct for Case Managers (Code), published by the Commission for Case Manager Certification, acknowledges "case managers may often confront ethical dilemmas" (Code 1996, Rev. 2015). PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTINGS: The Code and expectations that professional case managers, particularly those who are board certified, will uphold ethical and legal practice apply to case managers in every practice setting across the full continuum of health care. IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: This discussion acknowledges the ethical dilemmas that case managers routinely confront, which empowers them to seek support, guidance, and resources to support ethical practice. In addition, the article seeks to raise awareness of the effects of burnout and moral distress on case managers and others with whom they work closely on interdisciplinary teams.
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 | 0.068 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".