The challenges of ethical deliberation in palliative care settings: A descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Inadequate deliberation processes about ethical problems occurring in palliative care settings may negatively impact both patients and healthcare professionals. Better knowledge of the palliative care professionals' practices regarding such processes could help identify specific education needs to improve the quality of palliative care in the context of complex ethical situations. Therefore, this descriptive study aimed to (1) examine ethical deliberation processes in interprofessional teams in five palliative care settings; (2) identify organizational factors that constrain such processes; and (3) based on this knowledge, identify priority education needs for future and current palliative care professionals. METHOD: The study involved three data collection activities: (1) direct observation of simulated interprofessional ethical deliberations in various palliative care settings; (2) individual semi-structured interviews; and (3) deliberative dialogues. RESULTS: Thirty-six healthcare professionals took part in the simulated ethical deliberations and in the deliberative dialogue activities, and 13 were met in an individual interview. The study results revealed suboptimal interprofessional collaboration and ethical deliberation competencies, particularly regarding awareness of the ethical issue under consideration, clarification of conflicting values, reasonable decision making, and implementation planning. Participants also reported facing serious organizational constraints that challenged ethical deliberation processes. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study confirmed the need for professional education in interprofessional collaboration and ethical deliberation so that palliative care professionals can adequately face current and future ethical challenges. It also enabled the identification of educational priorities in this regard. Future research should focus on identifying promising educational activities, assessing their effectiveness, and measuring their impact on patient and family experience and the quality of palliative care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".