Managing Complex-Negative Services: Service Providers’ Use of Ethics Committees and Consultation in Healthcare Institutions

CSN: Ethics Pub Date : 2016-09-13 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2838416
J. Zyung, Vikas Mittal, S. Kekre, GG Hegde, J. Shang, Brian S. Marcus, A. Venkat
{"title":"Managing Complex-Negative Services: Service Providers’ Use of Ethics Committees and Consultation in Healthcare Institutions","authors":"J. Zyung, Vikas Mittal, S. Kekre, GG Hegde, J. Shang, Brian S. Marcus, A. Venkat","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2838416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In complex-negative services such as healthcare, service providers often confront ethical dilemmas, which are often resolved through the use of an ethics committee (EC). These dilemmas commonly surround difficult issues such as end-of-life care and conflict among caregivers of a disabled patient. Despite the meteoric rise of ECs, there is very little research on how service providers engage with an ethics committee (EC). This study shows that healthcare-service providers with a task- or relationship-management role in hospitals differ in their likelihood to use an EC and/or request formal ethics consultation. Results based on 1,440 observations support the theoretically hypothesized relationships. Service providers’ role — task- or relationship-management — influences their likelihood to engage the EC for initial consultation. Their further expectation for the EC to prescribe a specific outcome is jointly moderated by their managerial role and prior experience in ethical dilemmas. Our results offer theoretical insights into the use of ECs in complex-negative services. Managerially, our results show how organizations delivering complex-negative services can enhance the use of ECs to help address ethical dilemmas.","PeriodicalId":416153,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Ethics","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CSN: Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2838416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In complex-negative services such as healthcare, service providers often confront ethical dilemmas, which are often resolved through the use of an ethics committee (EC). These dilemmas commonly surround difficult issues such as end-of-life care and conflict among caregivers of a disabled patient. Despite the meteoric rise of ECs, there is very little research on how service providers engage with an ethics committee (EC). This study shows that healthcare-service providers with a task- or relationship-management role in hospitals differ in their likelihood to use an EC and/or request formal ethics consultation. Results based on 1,440 observations support the theoretically hypothesized relationships. Service providers’ role — task- or relationship-management — influences their likelihood to engage the EC for initial consultation. Their further expectation for the EC to prescribe a specific outcome is jointly moderated by their managerial role and prior experience in ethical dilemmas. Our results offer theoretical insights into the use of ECs in complex-negative services. Managerially, our results show how organizations delivering complex-negative services can enhance the use of ECs to help address ethical dilemmas.
管理复杂的负面服务:服务提供者使用伦理委员会和咨询在医疗机构
在医疗保健等复杂的负面服务中,服务提供者经常面临道德困境,这通常通过使用道德委员会来解决。这些困境通常围绕着一些困难的问题,如临终关怀和残疾患者护理人员之间的冲突。尽管伦理委员会迅速崛起,但很少有关于服务提供商如何与伦理委员会(EC)合作的研究。本研究表明,在医院中扮演任务管理或关系管理角色的医疗保健服务提供者在使用EC和/或要求正式伦理咨询的可能性方面存在差异。基于1440项观察的结果支持理论上假设的关系。服务提供者的角色——任务管理或关系管理——影响他们与欧共体进行初步咨询的可能性。他们对欧共体规定具体结果的进一步期望,由他们的管理角色和先前在道德困境中的经验共同调节。我们的研究结果为复杂负服务中ec的使用提供了理论见解。从管理角度来看,我们的研究结果表明,提供复杂负面服务的组织可以提高ec的使用,以帮助解决道德困境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信