Escape from the diffusion of responsibility: A review and guide for nurses

Quiet quitting: Obedience a minima as a form of nursing resistance

In this article, we provide a philosophical and ethical reflection about quiet quitting as a tool of political resistance for nurses. Quiet quitting is a trend that gained traction on TikTok in July 2022 and emerged as a method of resistance among employees facing increasing demands from their workplaces at the detriment of their personal lives. It is characterised by employees refraining from exceeding the basic requirements outlined in their job descriptions. To understand why quiet quitting can be a tool of resistance useful for nurses, we first draw on Frédéric Gros' concept of 'surplus obedience' and Michael Lipsky's notion of 'routines and simplification strategies' to highlight the ethical implications associated with nurses engaging in and sustaining harmful systems, such as the neoliberal healthcare system. Leaning again on Gros, we then propose that 'obedience a minima', a concept akin to quiet quitting, can serve as a method of ethical nursing resistance. After describing what the concept entails, we provide a discussion emphasising the potential of obedience a minima as a one method, among many, that can be leveraged by nurses to challenge and resist a system that prioritises financial considerations over patient wellbeing. The article concludes by reflecting on the ethical nature of resistance in the context of nursing, that is the act of obeying oneself and refraining from participating in systems that are detrimental to the lives of Others.

Experiences and attitudes of clinical and academic nurses about infection prevention and control nursing curriculum and duties - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Infectious diseases are becoming more widespread and re-emerging, causing psychological, social, economic, and health effects at both national and international levels. Specialist nurses can help prevent and control these infections. However, in Iran, there are currently no specialist infection prevention and control (IPC) nurses to manage and control infections. This study aims to explore clinical and academic nurses' attitudes toward IPC nursing curriculum and duties.

METHODS

The study used a qualitative content analysis approach. Thirty-six participants, including clinical and academic nurses, were selected using a purposeful sampling method. Data was collected through seven focused group discussions. The accuracy and validity of the research tools were measured using the Four-Dimension Criteria developed by Lincoln and Guba. Data analysis was conducted using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

The data analysis of the discussions held in the seven focus groups extracted 628 codes. Three themes were developed from the qualitative analysis: "Core characteristics of the curriculum", "Expected competencies and skills", and "Evaluation." These themes were derived from nine main categories and 25 subcategories.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialist IPC nurses can play important roles in various positions and environments. Therefore, educational policymakers in Iran should consider establishing IPC nursing courses. It is also recommended that policymakers and decision-makers in the nursing field of other less developed countries should prioritize this issue.

A troubling foundational inconsistency: autonomy and collective agency in critical care decision-making

'Shared' decision-making is heralded as the gold standard of how medical decisions should be reached, yet how does one 'share' a decision when any attempt to do so will undermine autonomous decision-making? And what exactly is being shared? While some authors have described parallels in literature, philosophical examination of shared agency remains largely uninvestigated as an explanation in bioethics. In the following, shared decision-making will be explained as occurring when a group, generally comprised of a patient and or their family, and the medical team become a genuine intentional subject which acts as a collective agent. Collective agency can better explain how some medical decisions are reached, contrary to the traditional understanding and operationalization of 'autonomy' in bioethics. Paradoxically, this often occurs in the setting of high-stakes moral decision-making, where conventional wisdom would suggest individuals would most want to exercise autonomous action according to their personally held values and beliefs. This explication of shared decision-making suggests a social ontology ought to inform or displace significant aspects of autonomy as construed in bioethics. It will be argued that joint commitments are a fundamental part of human life, informing and explaining much human behavior, and thus suggesting that autonomy - conceived of as discrete, individuated moral reasoning of a singular moral agent - is not an unalloyed 'good.'

Paid caregivers' experiences of falls prevention and care in China's senior care facilities: A phenomenological study

Background

In China, as population aging accelerates, senior care facilities have gradually become a mainstream option. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the annual rate of falls has increased from 30 to 50% in senior care facilities. A study found that older adults who live in senior care facilities are three times more likely to fall than those who live in the community. The quality of care is highly related to the occurrence of falls. Therefore, exploring paid caregivers' experiences is very important to prevent falls in senior care facilities.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore paid caregivers' experiences of fall prevention and care in China's senior care facilities. Furthermore, we discussed the situation and provided suggestions.

Design

This is a phenomenological study using face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interviews.

Setting

The study was conducted at four senior care facilities in Changsha, Hunan, China.

Participants

Fourteen paid caregivers in four senior care facilities, including nursing assistants and senior nurses, participated in this study.

Methods

A purposive sample method was used to select 14 nursing assistants and senior nurses from four different senior care facilities in Changsha from March to April 2022. Every participant individually completed a face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interview. Based on the phenomenological research methodology, the thematic analysis method and the Colaizzi analysis method were used for data analysis and theme extraction.

Results

Based on interview data, a total of seven themes were distilled: (1) paid caregivers' professional requirements; (2) paid caregivers' attitude toward falls; (3) paid caregivers' fall training and education; (4) paid caregivers' knowledge about falls; (5) paid caregivers' fall risk assessment; (6) paid caregivers' fall prevention; and (7) paid caregivers' fall treatment.

Conclusion

In China's senior care facilities, paid caregivers to need to be responsible and pay appropriate attention to older adults. First, senior nurses and nursing assistants need to enhance communication and cooperation. Second, they must learn about deficiencies in fall risk assessment and try their best to improve their capability. Third, they must adopt appropriate education methods to improve fall prevention capability. Finally, the protection of privacy should be taken seriously.

Groupthink among health professional teams in patient care: A scoping review

There is emerging interest in understanding group decision making among a team of health professionals. Groupthink, a term coined by Irving Janis to depict premature consensus seeking in highly cohesive groups, is a theory that has been widely discussed in disciplines outside health care. However, it remains unclear how it has been conceptualized, studied, and mitigated in the context of health professionals conducting patient care. This scoping review aimed to examine the conceptualization of groupthink in health care, empirical research conducted in healthcare teams, and recommendations to avoid groupthink. Eight databases were systematically searched for articles focusing on groupthink among health professional teams using a scoping review methodology. A total of 22 articles were included-most were commentaries or narrative reviews with only four empirical research studies. This review found that focus on groupthink and group decision making in medicine is relatively new and growing in interest. Few empirical studies on groupthink in health professional teams have been performed and there is conceptual disagreement on how to interpret groupthink in the context of clinical practice. Future research should develop a theoretical framework that applies groupthink theory to clinical decision making and medical education, validate the groupthink framework in clinical settings, develop measures of groupthink, evaluate interventions that mitigate groupthink in clinical practice, and examine how groupthink may be situated amidst other emerging social cognitive theories of collaborative clinical decision making.

Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients

BACKGROUND

Double-checking the administration of medications has been standard practice in paediatric hospitals around the world for decades. While the practice is widespread, evidence of its effectiveness in reducing errors or harm is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the association between double-checking, and the occurrence and potential severity of medication administration errors (MAEs); check duration; and factors associated with double-checking adherence.

METHODS

Direct observational study of 298 nurses, administering 5140 medication doses to 1523 patients, across nine wards, in a paediatric hospital. Independent observers recorded details of administrations and double-checking (independent; primed-one nurse shares information which may influence the checking nurse; incomplete; or none) in real time during weekdays and weekends between 07:00 and 22:00. Observational medication data were compared with patients' medical records by a reviewer (blinded to checking-status), to identify MAEs. MAEs were rated for potential severity. Observations included administrations where double-checking was mandated, or optional. Multivariable regression examined the association between double-checking, MAEs and potential severity; and factors associated with policy adherence.

RESULTS

For 3563 administrations double-checking was mandated. Of these, 36 (1·0%) received independent double-checks, 3296 (92·5%) primed and 231 (6·5%) no/incomplete double-checks. For 1577 administrations double-checking was not mandatory, but in 26·3% (n=416) nurses chose to double-check. Where double-checking was mandated there was no significant association between double-checking and MAEs (OR 0·89 (0·65-1·21); p=0·44), or potential MAE severity (OR 0·86 (0·65-1·15); p=0·31). Where double-checking was not mandated, but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (OR 0·71 (0·54-0·95); p=0·02) and had lower potential severity (OR 0·75 (0·57-0·99); p=0·04). Each double-check took an average of 6·4 min (107 hours/1000 administrations).

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with mandated double-checking was very high, but rarely independent. Primed double-checking was highly prevalent but compared with single-checking conferred no benefit in terms of reduced errors or severity. Our findings raise questions about if, when and how double-checking policies deliver safety benefits and warrant the considerable resource investments required in modern clinical settings.

Changes of Causal Attribution by a Co-actor in Situations of Obvious Causality

In social contexts, people are responsible for their actions and outcomes. Diffusion of responsibility is a well-known social phenomenon: people feel less responsible when performing an action with co-actors than when acting alone. In previous studies, co-actors reduced the participant’s responsibility attribution by making the cause of the outcomes ambiguous. Meanwhile, it is unclear whether the presence of co-actors creates diffusion of responsibility even in situations where it is “obvious” that both oneself and the co-actor are the causes of an outcome. To investigate this potential diffusion of responsibility, we used a temporal binding (TB) task as a measure of causal attribution. Low TB effects indicate the enhancement of external attribution (i.e., diffusion of responsibility) in perceptual processing for the action and outcomes. To investigate the influence of presence of a co-actor on causal attribution, participants were required to act under two experimental conditions: an ALONE condition (participant only) or a TOGETHER condition (with a co-actor). The only difference between the two conditions was whether the actions were shared. In addition, to make participants feel responsible, they were induced to feel guilt. In the High-harm condition, participants gave a financial reduction to a third party. When guilt was induced, participants showed lower TB effects in the TOGETHER condition compared to the ALONE condition. Our study suggests that actions with a co-actor change causal attributions even though the causes of the outcome are obvious. This may have implications for understanding diffusion of responsibility in inhumane situations.

Speaking up behavior and cognitive bias in hand hygiene: Competences of German-speaking medical students

Introduction

Infection prevention and speaking up on errors are core qualities of health care providers. Heuristic effects (e.g. overconfidence) may impair behavior in daily routine, while speaking up can be inhibited by hierarchical barriers and medical team factors. Aim of this investigation was to determine, how medical students experience these difficulties for hand hygiene in daily routine.

Methods

On the base of prior investigations we developed a questionnaire with 5-point Likert ordinal scaled items and free text entries. This was tested for validity and reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha 0.89). Accredited German, Swiss and Austrian universities were contacted and medical students asked to participated in the anonymous online survey. Quantitative statistics used parametric and non-parametric tests and effect size calculations according to Lakens. Qualitative data was coded according to Janesick.

Results

1042 undergraduates of 12 universities participated. All rated their capabilities in hand hygiene and feedback reception higher than those of fellow students, nurses and physicians (p<0.001). Half of the participants rating themselves to be best educated, realized that faulty hand hygiene can be of lethal effect. Findings were independent from age, sex, academic course and university. Speaking-up in case of omitted hand hygiene was rated to be done seldomly and most rare on persons of higher hierarchic levels. Qualitative results of 164 entries showed four main themes: 1) Education methods in hand hygiene are insufficient, 2) Hierarchy barriers impair constructive work place culture 3) Hygiene and feedback are linked to medical ethics and 4) There is no consequence for breaking hygiene rules.

Discussion

Although partially limited by the selection bias, this study confirms the overconfidence-effects demonstrated in post-graduates in other settings and different professions. The independence from study progress suggests, that the effect occurs before start of the academic course with need for educational intervention at the very beginning. Qualitative data showed that used methods are insufficient and contradictory work place behavior in hospitals are frustrating. Even 20 years after “To err is human”, work place culture still is far away from the desirable.