Lovisenberg Diaconal University College, Norway; University of Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo, Norway.
Nurs Ethics. 2018 Sep;25(6):746-759. doi: 10.1177/0969733016664977. Epub 2017 Jan 29.
There is little research comparing clinicians' and managers' views on priority settings in the healthcare services. During research on two different qualitative research projects on healthcare prioritisations, we found a striking difference on how hospital executive managers and clinical healthcare professionals talked about and understood prioritisations.
The purpose of this study is to explore how healthcare professionals in mental healthcare and somatic medicine prioritise their care, to compare different ways of setting priorities among managers and clinicians and to explore how moral dilemmas are balanced and reconciled. Research design and participants: We conducted qualitative observations, interviews and focus groups with medical doctors, nurses and other clinical members of the interdisciplinary team in both somatic medical and mental health wards in hospitals in Norway. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Ethical considerations: Basic ethical principles for research ethics were followed. The respondents signed an informed consent for participation. They were assured anonymity and confidentiality. The studies were approved by relevant ethics committees in line with the Helsinki Convention.
Our findings showed a widening gap between the views of clinicians on one hand and managers on the other. Clinicians experienced a threat to their autonomy, to their professional ideals and to their desire to perform their job in a professional way. Prioritisations were a cause of constant concern and problematic decisions. Even though several managers understood and empathised with the clinicians, the ideals of patient flow and keeping budgets balanced were perceived as more important.
We discuss our findings in light of the moral challenges of patient-centred individual healthcare versus demands of distributive justice from healthcare management.
The clinicians' ideals of autonomy and good medical and nursing care for the individual patients were perceived as endangered.
关于临床医生和管理人员对医疗服务优先事项的看法,相关研究较少。在对两个不同的医疗保健优先事项定性研究项目进行研究时,我们发现医院行政管理人员和临床医疗保健专业人员在谈论和理解优先事项方面存在显著差异。
本研究旨在探讨精神卫生保健和躯体医学中的医疗保健专业人员如何确定其护理的优先次序,比较管理人员和临床医生设定优先次序的不同方式,并探讨如何平衡和调和道德困境。
我们对挪威医院躯体医学和精神健康病房的医生、护士和其他跨学科团队的临床成员进行了定性观察、访谈和焦点小组讨论。访谈进行了录音,并逐字记录。
遵循了研究伦理的基本伦理原则。受访者签署了参与的知情同意书。他们保证了匿名和机密性。这些研究获得了符合赫尔辛基公约的相关伦理委员会的批准。
我们的研究结果显示,临床医生的观点与管理人员的观点之间存在越来越大的差距。临床医生感到自主权受到威胁,职业理想受到威胁,以及以专业方式履行工作的愿望受到威胁。优先事项是持续关注和有问题的决策的原因。尽管一些管理人员理解并同情临床医生,但患者流量和预算平衡的理想被认为更为重要。
我们根据以患者为中心的个体医疗保健的道德挑战以及医疗保健管理的分配公正需求来讨论我们的研究结果。
临床医生的自主权理想和对个体患者的良好医疗和护理关怀被认为受到威胁。