| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Svantesson, Mia, et al.
(författare)
-
Learning a way through ethical problems : Swedish nurses’ and doctors’ experiences from one model of ethics rounds
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Ethics. - : BMJ. - 0306-6800 .- 1473-4257. ; 34:5, s. 399-406
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate one ethics rounds model by describing nurses' and doctors' experiences of the rounds. METHODS: Philosopher-ethicist-led interprofessional team ethics rounds concerning dialysis patient care problems were applied at three Swedish hospitals. The philosophers were instructed to promote mutual understanding and stimulate ethical reflection, without giving any recommendations or solutions. Interviews with seven doctors and 11 nurses were conducted regarding their experiences from the rounds, which were then analysed using content analysis. Findings: The goal of the rounds was partly fulfilled. Participants described both positive and negative experiences. Good rounds included stimulation to broadened thinking, a sense of connecting, strengthened confidence to act, insight into moral responsibility and emotional relief. Negative experiences were associated with a sense of unconcern and alienation, as well as frustration with the lack of solutions and a sense of resignation that change is not possible. The findings suggest that the ethics rounds above all met the need of a forum for crossing over professional boundaries. The philosophers seemed to play an important role in structuring and stimulating reasoned arguments. The nurses' expectation that solutions to the ethical problems would be sought despite explicit instructions to the contrary was conspicuous. CONCLUSION: When assisting healthcare professionals to learn a way through ethical problems in patient care, a balance should be found between ethical analyses, conflict resolution and problem solving. A model based on the findings is presented.
|
|
| 3. |
- Svantesson, Mia, et al.
(författare)
-
Nurses' and physicians' opinions on aggressiveness of treatment for general ward patients
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Nursing Ethics. - : SAGE Publications. - 0969-7330 .- 1477-0989. ; 13:2, s. 147-162
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of this study was to evaluate agreement between nurses' and physicians' opinions regarding aggressiveness of treatment and to investigate and compare the rationales on which their opinions were based. Structured interviews regarding 714 patients were performed on seven general wards of a university hospital. The data gathered were then subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses. There was 86% agreement between nurses' and physicians' opinions regarding full or limited treatment when the answers given as 'uncertain' were excluded. Agreement was less (77%) for patients with a life expectancy of less than one year. Disagreements were not associated with professional status because the physicians considered limiting life-sustaining treatment as often as the nurses. A broad spectrum of rationales was given but the results focus mostly on those for full treatment. The nurses and the physicians had similar bases for their opinions. For the majority of the patients, medical rationales were used, but age and quality of life were also expressed as important determinants. When considering full treatment, nurses used quality-of-life rationales for significantly more patients than the physicians. Respect for patients' wishes had a minor influence.
|
|
