↓ Skip to main content

Developing organisational ethics in palliative care

Overview of attention for article published in Nursing Ethics, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Developing organisational ethics in palliative care
Published in
Nursing Ethics, August 2015
DOI 10.1177/0969733015595542
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars Sandman, Ulla Molander, Inger Benkel

Abstract

Palliative carers constantly face ethical problems. There is lack of organised support for the carers to handle these ethical problems in a consistent way. Within organisational ethics, we find models for moral deliberation and for developing organisational culture; however, they are not combined in a structured way to support carers' everyday work. The aim of this study was to describe ethical problems faced by palliative carers and develop an adapted organisational set of values to support the handling of these problems. Ethical problems were mapped out using focus groups and content analysis. The organisational culture were developed using normative analysis and focus group methodology within a participatory action research approach. A total of 15 registered nurses and 10 assistant nurses at a palliative unit (with 19 patient beds) at a major University Hospital in Sweden. The study followed standard ethics guidelines concerning informed consent and confidentiality. We found six categories of ethical problems (with the main focus on problems relating to the patient's loved ones) and five categories of organisational obstacles. Based on these findings, we developed a set of values in three levels: a general level, an explanatory level and a level of action strategies. The ethical problems found corresponded to problems in other studies with a notable exception, the large focus on patient loved ones. The three-level set of values is a way to handle risks of formulating abstract values not providing guidance in concrete care voiced in other studies. Developing a three-level set of values adapted to the specific ethical problems in a concrete care setting is a first step towards a better handling of ethical problems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 17 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 17 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,423,683
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Nursing Ethics
#523
of 655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,618
of 264,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nursing Ethics
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.