Difficult decisions in pediatric practice and moral distress in the intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an ethical dilemma, there is always an option that can be identified as the best one to be chosen. When it is impossible to adopt such option, the situation can lead professionals to experience moral distress. This review aims to define the issue of moral distress and propose coping strategies. Systematic searches in the MEDLINE/PubMed and SciELO databases were conducted using the keywords "moral distress" and "moral suffering" in articles published between 2000 and 2017. This review was non-exhaustive and contextual, with a focus on definitions, etiologies and methods of resolution for moral distress. In the daily practice of intensive care, moral distress was commonly related to the prolongation of patients' suffering and feelings of helplessness, as well as difficulties in communication among team members. Coping strategies for moral distress included organizational, personal and administrative actions. Actions such as workload management, mutual support among professionals and the development of techniques to cultivate open communication, reflection and questioning within the multidisciplinary team were identified. In clinical practice, health professionals need to be recognized as moral agents, and the development of moral courage was considered helpful to overcome ethical dilemmas and interprofessional conflicts. Both in pediatric and adult intensive care, professionals are challenged by questions about their practice, and they may experience moral distress. This suffering can be minimized and solved by understanding that the focus is always on the patient and acting with moral courage and good communication in an environment of mutual respect.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".