923 Occupational health and safety issues of ethical dilemmas faced by nurses in clinical practice settings: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction During their practice, nurses regularly encounter ethical dilemmas. The sources of these dilemmas, according to the literature, seem mainly related to clinical practice settings, such as emergency, intensive, palliative, oncology, etc. However, as part of a graduate clinical ethics course for nurses, we also noticed that the sources of nurse ethical dilemmas seem to be very much related to occupational safety and health (OSH) considerations as opposed to clinical situations. This research aimed to highlight these sources of ethical dilemmas that can be attributed to contexts and aspects other than those found in the literature, particularly those related to OSH. Methods Ethical dilemmas were assessed qualitatively by analysing 250 written descriptions presented by students in the graduate clinical ethics course for nurses. Each description was analysed using the continuous comparison technique in order to produce an emergent model, which reconstructed the nurses’ representations of ethical dilemmas pertaining to OSH. Results The results provide a much broader picture of the ethical dilemmas faced by nurses. The model shows that the majority of ethical dilemmas described has underlying dynamics related to OSH. They described ethical dilemmas arising from an explicit risk to their physical or psychological health such as exposure to biological agents, bullying or threats from the patient‘s family. Moreover, many of the ethical dilemmas are expressed by the nurses primarily in terms of consequences for herself and not for the patient. Conclusion This model emphasises that OSH issues have a significant impact on ethical dilemmas experienced by nurses. Consequently, these issues should be part of the discussions regarding ethical climate in nursing management and education.
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 | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".