Clinical Ethics Support Provided to Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Teams in Quebec: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Rehabilitation is a health care service focusing on the restoration and maintenance of function and is often undertaken by interdisciplinary teams. Rehabilitation care providers encounter ethical issues and concerns that require attention and resolution. Clinical ethics services (CES) provided by ethics consultants aim to support teams facing ethical challenges. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences and perspectives of individuals providing CES to interdisciplinary rehabilitation teams in Quebec health care centres. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study and interviewed individuals who provide CES in all 22 integrated health care centres in the province of Quebec. Interview transcripts were examined using constant comparative techniques and inductive thematic analysis. Results: Rehabilitation teams requested CES to address a range of issues, from conflicts between upholding patient autonomy and promoting safety to challenges arising due to structural gaps in care trajectories. However, ethics requests from rehabilitation teams were described as much less frequent than those received from teams working in acute care settings. Forms of CES provided to rehabilitation teams included accompaniment, ethical deliberation and mediation. Participants highlighted challenges providing ethics support, such as limited visibility of their services amongst rehabilitation teams and insufficient resources available to extend the reach of CES. Conclusion: Despite encountering challenges, ethics consultants offer diverse forms of support to interdisciplinary rehabilitation teams in Quebec. Further research is needed to better understand the range of ethical issues arising in rehabilitation, as well as the impact that CES support can have on how situations unfold and how they are experienced by all involved.
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 | 0.104 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.027 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".