Organizational Ethics in Healthcare: A National Survey.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Kelly Turner, Tim Lahey, Becket Gremmels, Jason Lesandrini, William A Nelson
{"title":"Organizational Ethics in Healthcare: A National Survey.","authors":"Kelly Turner, Tim Lahey, Becket Gremmels, Jason Lesandrini, William A Nelson","doi":"10.1007/s10730-023-09520-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Organizational ethics-defined as the alignment of an institution's practices with its mission, vision, and values-is a growing field in health care not well characterized in empirical literature. To capture the scope and context of organizational ethics work in United States healthcare institutions, we conducted a nationwide convenience survey of ethicists regarding the scope of organizational ethics work, common challenges faced, and the organizational context in which this work is done. In this article, we report substantial variability in the structure of organizational ethics programs and the settings in which it is conducted. Notable findings included disagreement about the activities that comprise organizational ethics and a lack of common metrics used to assess organizational ethics activities. A frequently cited barrier to full engagement in these activities was poor institution-wide understanding about the role and function of organizational ethics resources. These data suggest a tension in the trajectory of organizational ethics' professionalization: while some variability is appropriate to the field's relative youth, inadequate attention to definitions of organizational ethics practice and metrics for success can impede discussions about appropriate institutional support, leadership context, and training for practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-023-09520-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organizational ethics-defined as the alignment of an institution's practices with its mission, vision, and values-is a growing field in health care not well characterized in empirical literature. To capture the scope and context of organizational ethics work in United States healthcare institutions, we conducted a nationwide convenience survey of ethicists regarding the scope of organizational ethics work, common challenges faced, and the organizational context in which this work is done. In this article, we report substantial variability in the structure of organizational ethics programs and the settings in which it is conducted. Notable findings included disagreement about the activities that comprise organizational ethics and a lack of common metrics used to assess organizational ethics activities. A frequently cited barrier to full engagement in these activities was poor institution-wide understanding about the role and function of organizational ethics resources. These data suggest a tension in the trajectory of organizational ethics' professionalization: while some variability is appropriate to the field's relative youth, inadequate attention to definitions of organizational ethics practice and metrics for success can impede discussions about appropriate institutional support, leadership context, and training for practitioners.

Abstract Image

医疗保健领域的组织伦理:全国调查。
组织伦理被定义为机构的实践与其使命、愿景和价值观的一致性,是医疗保健领域一个不断发展的领域,但在实证文献中并没有很好的描述。为了了解美国医疗机构组织伦理工作的范围和背景,我们在全国范围内就组织伦理工作的范围、面临的共同挑战以及开展这项工作的组织背景等问题对伦理学家进行了方便调查。在这篇文章中,我们报告了组织伦理计划的结构及其开展环境的巨大差异。值得注意的发现包括:对构成组织道德规范的活动存在分歧,以及缺乏用于评估组织道德规范活动的通用指标。一个经常被提及的妨碍全面参与这些活动的障碍是,整个机构对组织伦理资源的作用和功能缺乏了解。这些数据表明,在组织伦理专业化的发展轨迹中存在着一种紧张关系:虽然一些变异性与该领域的相对年轻是相适应的,但对组织伦理实践的定义和成功的衡量标准关注不够,会阻碍有关适当的机构支持、领导背景和从业人员培训的讨论。
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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
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