Physicians, nurses, and other clinicians readily acknowledge being troubled by encounters with patients who trigger moral judgments. For decades social scientists have noted that moral judgment of patients is pervasive, occurring not only in egregious and criminal cases but also in everyday situations in which appraisals of patients' social worth and culpability are routine. There is scant literature, however, on the actual prevalence and dynamics of moral judgment in healthcare. The indirect evidence available suggests that moral appraisals function via a complex calculus that reflects variation in patient characteristics, clinician characteristics, task, and organizational factors. The full impact of moral judgment on healthcare relationships, patient outcomes, and clinicians' own well-being is yet unknown. The paucity of attention to moral judgment, despite its significance for patient-centered care, communication, empathy, professionalism, healthcare education, stereotyping, and outcome disparities, represents a blind spot that merits explanation and repair. New methodologies in social psychology and neuroscience have yielded models for how moral judgment operates in healthcare and how research in this area should proceed. Clinicians, educators, and researchers would do well to recognize both the legitimate and illegitimate moral appraisals that are apt to occur in healthcare settings.
Issues related to the perceived competency of nurses by physicians is consistent with existing data from other clinical settings. Differences in awareness about scope of practice and regulatory requirements between the groups may offer a partial explanation for the discordant perceptions. Perceptions by nurses (but not physicians) of unpleasantness and/or disrespect during telephone encounters may reflect the broader ongoing differences in professional culture, social status, and gender inequality between the two groups. Further clarification of the causes of barriers to effective communication is essential in order to plan appropriate interventions.
Despite increasing numbers of geriatric prisoners, little is known about geriatric disability or health care in prison. Although correctional officers often act as a liaison between prisoners and the healthcare system, the role of officers in recognizing geriatric disability has not been characterized. The goals of this study were to assess officers' assessment of disability in their assigned geriatric prisoners and to contrast their views with reports from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Questionnaires were given to 71 officers assigned to 618 randomly selected geriatric prisoners in 11 prisons. Information about 41 additional prisoners identified by correctional officers as "high risk" was also analyzed. Prisoner disability and health were determined through correctional officer questionnaires (activity of daily living (ADL) impairment, geriatric syndromes, level of care), chart review (medical diagnoses), and CDCR data (demographics, disability designation). Overall, 211 (34.1%) geriatric prisoners were unknown to their officer. Of the 407 known prisoners, officers reported that 5.0% had ADL impairment and 3.1% were unsafe. Discordance between officer and CDCR reports of disability was common, with officers reporting higher disability rates. The 41 high-risk prisoners were more likely to have ADL impairment (22.0% vs 5.2%, P<.01) and geriatric syndromes such as falls and incontinence than the random sample. Overall, nearly one-third of geriatric prisoners were unknown to their assigned officer. Officers identified more disability than the CDCR, and prisoners they identified as high risk had nursing home-level functional impairments. Significant improvement in disability assessment is needed for officers and the CDCR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.