The aim of the study was to describe the factors that influence critical care nurses when deciding to wean patients from mechanical ventilation. The study adopted a qualitative methodology, using semi-structured interviews and a vignette. An invited sample of critical care nurses (n=24) from one Irish intensive care unit was employed. Each nurse was interviewed once and a vignette was used to structure the interview questioning. The findings were analysed using thematic content analysis. Six major themes influencing nurses' decision to wean emerged, as follows: physiological influences; clinical reassessment and decision making; the nurse's experience, confidence and education; the patient's medical history and current ventilation; the intensive care working environment; and use of protocols. The findings highlight the complex nature of weaning patients from mechanical ventilation and the major role of the nurse in this process.

No abstract

This study aims to explore the perceptions of foundation doctors (FDs) in the United Kingdom (UK) surrounding raising concerns in the workplace. An online survey was sent to all FDs in the UK between February and March 2018. Respondents were asked what they had observed or experienced that had been ethically challenging during their foundation training. The qualitative responses were coded into themes. Reasons why FDs wished to raise concerns in the workplace included disagreements about clinical decisions within the team, insufficient availability of resources, lack of senior colleague support and having to work beyond their competencies. Challenges faced by FDs when raising concerns included organisational resistance to change, difficulties in communicating ideas to those higher up in the hierarchy and the emotional stress of whistleblowing regarding senior colleagues.Perceived consequences of raising concerns included negative impact on FDs' reputation and career, and fear of bullying. To overcome these barriers, changes within organisations at all levels must take place in order to provide an environment where FDs are encouraged to raise concerns and thus make positive changes to their work environments for themselves, their colleagues and patients.

No abstract

This paper investigates the medical law and ethics (MEL) learning needs of Foundation doctors (FYs) by means of a national survey developed in association with key stakeholders including the General Medical Council and Health Education England. Four hundred sevnty-nine doctors completed the survey. The average self-reported level of preparation in MEL was 63%. When asked to rate how confident they felt in approaching three cases of increasing ethical complexity, more FYs were fully confident in the more complex cases than in the more standard case. There was no apparent relationship with confidence and reported teaching at medical school. The less confident doctors were no more likely to ask for further teaching on the topic than the confident doctors. This suggests that FYs can be vulnerable when facing ethical decisions by being underprepared, not recognising their lack of ability to make a reasoned decision or by being overconfident. Educators need to be aware of this and provide practical MEL training based on trainee experiences and real-world ethics and challenge learners’ views. Given the complexities of many ethical decisions, preparedness should not be seen as the ability to make a difficult decision but rather a recognition that such cases are difficult, that doubt is permissible and the solution may well be beyond the relatively inexperienced doctor. Educators and supervisors should therefore be ensuring that this is clear to their trainees. This necessitates an environment in which questions can be asked and uncertainty raised with the expectation of a supportive response.