伦理:危机护理标准模拟。

IF 0.8 Q4 NURSING
Diane Fuller Switzer, Suzan Griffis Knowles
{"title":"伦理:危机护理标准模拟。","authors":"Diane Fuller Switzer, Suzan Griffis Knowles","doi":"10.1097/TME.0000000000000498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ethical dilemmas exist with decision-making regarding resource allocations, such as critical care, ventilators and other critical equipment, and pharmaceuticals during pandemics. Triage artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms based on prognostication tools exist to guide these decisions; however, implicit bias may affect the decision-making process leading to deviation from the algorithm recommendations. Conflict within the ethical domain may be affected as well. A knowledge gap was identified within the Adult-Gerontology Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (AG-ACNP) curriculum regarding ethics in crisis standards of care (CSC) medical decision-making. Incorporating a CSC simulation looked to address this knowledge gap. A simulation-based learning (SBL) experience was designed as a critical access setting where CSC are in place and three diverse, medically complex patients in need of critical care present to the hospital where one critical care bed remains open. Given the complexity of the simulation scenario, a table-top pilot test was selected. Three AG-ACNP fourth-quarter students in their critical care rotation volunteered for the pilot test. Students were provided with the topic, \"ethics crisis standards of care\" and the article, \"A catalogue of tools and variables from crisis and routine care to support decision-making during pandemics\" by M. Cardona et al. (2021), to read in advance. Students were provided with the triage AI algorithm (M. Cardona et al., 2021) utilizing prognostication tools to prioritize which patient requires the critical care bed. The expectation was that implicit bias would enter the decision-making process, causing deviation from the triage AI algorithm and moral distress. The debriefing session revealed that students deviated from the triage AI algorithm, experienced implicit bias, moral distress, and utilized clinical judgment and experience to care for all three patients. The pilot test results support that a CSC SBL experience addresses a critical knowledge gap in AG-ACNP education and an SBL experience incorporating ethical decision-making curriculum with standardized patients should be developed and trialed as the next step.</p>","PeriodicalId":45446,"journal":{"name":"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethics: Crisis Standards of Care Simulation.\",\"authors\":\"Diane Fuller Switzer, Suzan Griffis Knowles\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TME.0000000000000498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ethical dilemmas exist with decision-making regarding resource allocations, such as critical care, ventilators and other critical equipment, and pharmaceuticals during pandemics. Triage artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms based on prognostication tools exist to guide these decisions; however, implicit bias may affect the decision-making process leading to deviation from the algorithm recommendations. Conflict within the ethical domain may be affected as well. A knowledge gap was identified within the Adult-Gerontology Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (AG-ACNP) curriculum regarding ethics in crisis standards of care (CSC) medical decision-making. Incorporating a CSC simulation looked to address this knowledge gap. A simulation-based learning (SBL) experience was designed as a critical access setting where CSC are in place and three diverse, medically complex patients in need of critical care present to the hospital where one critical care bed remains open. Given the complexity of the simulation scenario, a table-top pilot test was selected. Three AG-ACNP fourth-quarter students in their critical care rotation volunteered for the pilot test. Students were provided with the topic, \\\"ethics crisis standards of care\\\" and the article, \\\"A catalogue of tools and variables from crisis and routine care to support decision-making during pandemics\\\" by M. Cardona et al. (2021), to read in advance. Students were provided with the triage AI algorithm (M. Cardona et al., 2021) utilizing prognostication tools to prioritize which patient requires the critical care bed. The expectation was that implicit bias would enter the decision-making process, causing deviation from the triage AI algorithm and moral distress. The debriefing session revealed that students deviated from the triage AI algorithm, experienced implicit bias, moral distress, and utilized clinical judgment and experience to care for all three patients. The pilot test results support that a CSC SBL experience addresses a critical knowledge gap in AG-ACNP education and an SBL experience incorporating ethical decision-making curriculum with standardized patients should be developed and trialed as the next step.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0000000000000498\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0000000000000498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在大流行病期间,有关资源分配(如重症监护、呼吸机和其他关键设备以及药品)的决策存在伦理困境。基于预后工具的人工智能(AI)分诊算法可以指导这些决策;但是,隐性偏见可能会影响决策过程,导致偏离算法建议。伦理领域的冲突也可能受到影响。在成人-老年急症护理执业护士(AG-ACNP)课程中,发现了危机护理标准(CSC)医疗决策伦理方面的知识空白。将 CSC 模拟纳入其中有望解决这一知识缺口。模拟学习(SBL)体验被设计成一个危重病人就诊环境,在该环境中,CSC 已经到位,三位需要危重病人护理的不同的、病情复杂的病人来到医院,而医院仍有一张危重病人护理床位。鉴于模拟场景的复杂性,选择了桌面试点测试。三名 AG-ACNP 第四季度重症护理轮转学生自愿参加了试点测试。我们向学生提供了 "伦理危机护理标准 "这一主题以及 M. Cardona 等人(2021 年)撰写的文章 "危机和常规护理中用于支持大流行病期间决策的工具和变量目录",供他们提前阅读。向学生们提供了分流人工智能算法(M. Cardona 等人,2021 年),利用预后工具来确定哪些病人需要重症监护床位。预计内隐偏见会进入决策过程,导致偏离人工智能分诊算法和道德困扰。汇报环节显示,学生偏离了人工智能分诊算法,出现了内隐偏差和道德困扰,并利用临床判断和经验护理了所有三名患者。试点测试结果表明,CSC SBL 体验解决了 AG-ACNP 教育中的一个关键知识缺口,下一步应开发和试用将伦理决策课程与标准化患者相结合的 SBL 体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethics: Crisis Standards of Care Simulation.

Ethical dilemmas exist with decision-making regarding resource allocations, such as critical care, ventilators and other critical equipment, and pharmaceuticals during pandemics. Triage artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms based on prognostication tools exist to guide these decisions; however, implicit bias may affect the decision-making process leading to deviation from the algorithm recommendations. Conflict within the ethical domain may be affected as well. A knowledge gap was identified within the Adult-Gerontology Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (AG-ACNP) curriculum regarding ethics in crisis standards of care (CSC) medical decision-making. Incorporating a CSC simulation looked to address this knowledge gap. A simulation-based learning (SBL) experience was designed as a critical access setting where CSC are in place and three diverse, medically complex patients in need of critical care present to the hospital where one critical care bed remains open. Given the complexity of the simulation scenario, a table-top pilot test was selected. Three AG-ACNP fourth-quarter students in their critical care rotation volunteered for the pilot test. Students were provided with the topic, "ethics crisis standards of care" and the article, "A catalogue of tools and variables from crisis and routine care to support decision-making during pandemics" by M. Cardona et al. (2021), to read in advance. Students were provided with the triage AI algorithm (M. Cardona et al., 2021) utilizing prognostication tools to prioritize which patient requires the critical care bed. The expectation was that implicit bias would enter the decision-making process, causing deviation from the triage AI algorithm and moral distress. The debriefing session revealed that students deviated from the triage AI algorithm, experienced implicit bias, moral distress, and utilized clinical judgment and experience to care for all three patients. The pilot test results support that a CSC SBL experience addresses a critical knowledge gap in AG-ACNP education and an SBL experience incorporating ethical decision-making curriculum with standardized patients should be developed and trialed as the next step.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal is a peer-reviewed journal designed to meet the needs of advanced practice clinicians, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, healthcare professionals, and clinical and academic educators in emergency nursing. Articles contain evidence-based material that can be applied to daily practice. Continuing Education opportunities are available in each issue. Feature articles focus on in-depth, state of the science content relevant to advanced practice nurses and experienced clinicians in emergency care. Ongoing Departments Include: Cases of Note Radiology Rounds Research to Practice Applied Pharmacology
×
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