MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309822015 · doi:10.1177/10398562221142448

Psychiatrist and trainee moral injury during the organisational long COVID of Australian acute psychiatric inpatient services

2022· article· en· W4309822015 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey CL Looi, Paul A Maguire, Steve Kisely, Stephen Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoral injuryStaffingContext (archaeology)BurnoutPsychiatryPandemicMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Mental healthNursingAcute carePsychologyHealth careClinical psychologyPolitical sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This paper provides a commentary on the risk of moral injury amongst psychiatrists and trainees working in the acute psychiatric hospital sector, during the third winter of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Moral injuries arise from observing, causing or failing to prevent adverse outcomes that transgress core ethical and moral values. Potentially, morally injurious events (PMIEs) are more prevalent and potent while demand on acute hospitals is heightened with the emergence of highly infectious SARS-CoV-2-Omicron subvariants (BA.4 and BA.5). Acute hospital inpatient services were already facing extraordinary stresses in the context of increasingly depleted infrastructure and staffing related to the pandemic. These stresses have a high potential to be morally injurious. It is essential to immediately fund additional staff and resources and address workplace health and safety, to seek to arrest a spiral of moral injury and burnout amongst psychiatrists and trainees. We discuss recommended support strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207