Ethical reflections of healthcare staff on 'consentless measures' in somatic care: A qualitative study.

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Joar Björk, Niklas Juth, Tove Godskesen
{"title":"Ethical reflections of healthcare staff on 'consentless measures' in somatic care: A qualitative study.","authors":"Joar Björk, Niklas Juth, Tove Godskesen","doi":"10.1177/09697330251328649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundMany patients in medical wards lack decision-making capacity and cannot provide valid consent. As a result, nurses and other healthcare professionals often face a dilemma: whether to neglect the medical needs of such patients, or provide healthcare interventions without obtaining valid consent. Previous studies have indicated that many interventions are provided without consent; however, there is insufficient knowledge about how staff in this context reason about the ethical dilemmas they encounter.AimTo explore the ethical reasons provided by nurses and other healthcare professionals in medical wards for and against providing healthcare interventions without patients' consent.Research designThe study employed a qualitative explorative design. Eight focus group interviews were held with 37 staff across five different professions, mainly nurses, at two Swedish hospitals. The material was subjected to qualitative analysis, following a Reflective Thematic Analysis framework.Ethical considerationsEthical approval for this study was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. All participants were informed orally and in writing about the study's aims and its voluntary nature. No sensitive personal information was registered. Participants provided their oral consent to participate before the interviews took place.Findings/ResultsThematic analysis resulted in four main themes: <i>Coercion is a bad word</i>; <i>Reasons to accept coercion</i>; <i>Coercion is part of ward culture,</i> and <i>Unacceptable coercion.</i>ConclusionsParticipants overwhelmingly supported the current use of 'consentless measures' at the investigated wards. Most situations described either needed no justification, according to participants, or could be easily justified by reference to the benefit of the patient, the patient's poor decision-making capacity, or the benefit of others. A range of implicit, contextual, and institutional justifications were also given. Suboptimal ward culture was considered a prime driver of consentless measures and a force that compromises nurses' agency in the patient encounter.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"9697330251328649"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330251328649","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundMany patients in medical wards lack decision-making capacity and cannot provide valid consent. As a result, nurses and other healthcare professionals often face a dilemma: whether to neglect the medical needs of such patients, or provide healthcare interventions without obtaining valid consent. Previous studies have indicated that many interventions are provided without consent; however, there is insufficient knowledge about how staff in this context reason about the ethical dilemmas they encounter.AimTo explore the ethical reasons provided by nurses and other healthcare professionals in medical wards for and against providing healthcare interventions without patients' consent.Research designThe study employed a qualitative explorative design. Eight focus group interviews were held with 37 staff across five different professions, mainly nurses, at two Swedish hospitals. The material was subjected to qualitative analysis, following a Reflective Thematic Analysis framework.Ethical considerationsEthical approval for this study was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. All participants were informed orally and in writing about the study's aims and its voluntary nature. No sensitive personal information was registered. Participants provided their oral consent to participate before the interviews took place.Findings/ResultsThematic analysis resulted in four main themes: Coercion is a bad word; Reasons to accept coercion; Coercion is part of ward culture, and Unacceptable coercion.ConclusionsParticipants overwhelmingly supported the current use of 'consentless measures' at the investigated wards. Most situations described either needed no justification, according to participants, or could be easily justified by reference to the benefit of the patient, the patient's poor decision-making capacity, or the benefit of others. A range of implicit, contextual, and institutional justifications were also given. Suboptimal ward culture was considered a prime driver of consentless measures and a force that compromises nurses' agency in the patient encounter.

医疗人员对躯体护理中“非一致措施”的伦理反思:一项定性研究。
背景许多病房病人缺乏决策能力,不能提供有效的同意。因此,护士和其他保健专业人员经常面临两难境地:是忽视这类患者的医疗需求,还是在未获得有效同意的情况下提供保健干预措施。以前的研究表明,许多干预措施是在未经同意的情况下提供的;然而,关于员工在这种情况下如何对他们遇到的道德困境进行推理的知识不足。目的探讨病房护士和其他医护专业人员在未经病人同意的情况下支持和反对提供医疗干预措施的道德原因。研究设计本研究采用定性探索性设计。对瑞典两家医院5个不同职业的37名工作人员(主要是护士)进行了8次焦点小组访谈。根据反思性主题分析框架,对材料进行定性分析。伦理考虑本研究获得了瑞典伦理审查局的伦理批准。所有参与者都被口头和书面告知研究的目的及其自愿性质。没有注册敏感的个人信息。参与者在访谈开始前口头同意参与。发现/结果专题分析得出四个主要主题:强制是一个坏词;接受胁迫的理由;强迫是病房文化的一部分,不可接受的强迫。结论:绝大多数参与者支持目前在调查病房使用“非一致措施”。根据参与者的说法,描述的大多数情况要么不需要证明,要么可以通过参考患者的利益、患者糟糕的决策能力或他人的利益来轻松证明。还给出了一系列隐含的、背景的和制度的理由。次优病房文化被认为是非一致措施的主要驱动因素,也是在患者遭遇中妥协护士机构的力量。
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
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
×
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