A discussion of the destabilizing effects of moral injury among nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A concealed storm of ethical quandaries and systemic deficiencies is brewing in healthcare paralleling the uncertainties wrought by the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite their commitment to providing safe, compassionate care, nurses grapple with a multitude of factors that impede their agency including excessive workloads, unsafe nurse-patient ratios, and deficiencies in leadership. The emboldened structure and agency paradox further complicates matters as nurses, recognizing systemic constraints, simultaneously feel a strong sense of professional responsibility. This article delves into the ethical principles guiding nurses' work, exploring the strain on moral integrity within incompatible systemic constraints. Scenarios such as conflicting organizational policies hindering patient safety measures, exemplify the moral distress faced by nurses worldwide. The article emphasizes the consequences of unchecked moral distress and its potential to deteriorate into a prolonged state of moral injury impacting nurses’ physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being. The significance of addressing moral distress and subsequently, moral injury is underscored noting their adverse effects on nurses' well-being and retention; pivotal elements in sustaining healthcare systems. The key to address this lies in listening to the frontline staff nurses who possess invaluable insights into the daily struggles and can serve as potent agents of change. The cost of neglecting these issues is deemed too high urging a paradigm shift in recognizing, understanding, and rectifying the ethical challenges and systemic shortcomings plaguing the nursing profession.
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 | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".