Combining rules and dialogue: exploring stakeholder perspectives on preventing sexual boundary violations in mental health and disability care organizations

The Diversity Compass: a clinical ethics support instrument for dialogues on diversity in healthcare organizations

BACKGROUND

Increasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice.

METHODS

We used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation.

RESULTS

The Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations.

A Proposed Approach to Allegations of Sexual Boundary Violation in Health Care

BACKGROUND

Sexual boundary violations in the health care setting cause harm for victims, threaten an organization's culture, and create extraordinary organizational risk. The inherent complexities of health care organizations present unique challenges for the initial triage and response to reports of alleged violations.

METHODS

A group of experts with experience in law, leadership, human resources, medicine, and health care operations identified processes for organizations to triage and implement an early response to allegations of sexual boundary violations. The group reviewed a series of 100 reports of alleged violations described by patients and coworkers from a 200-hospital professional accountability collaborative to identify the elements of an ideal initial triage and management approach.

RESULTS

The group identified three domains to guide early triage and response to reports of boundary violations: (1) severity and acuity of the alleged violation; (2) roles and relationship(s) of the complainant, respondent, and other affected individuals; and (3) contextual information such as prior activity or other mitigating factors. The group identified leadership engagement; coordinated responses; clear articulation of values, policies, and procedures; aligned data reporting; thoughtful reviews; and securing appropriate resources as essential elements of an organization's response.

CONCLUSION

A structured systematic approach to classify and respond to allegations of sexual boundary violation is described. The initial response should be guided by assessment of the severity and timing of the reported behavior, followed by assessment of roles and responsibilities with involvement of all relevant stakeholders. Contextual issues and special circumstances of relevance should be identified and incorporated into the response. Systems to identify, store, and retrieve behavior of concern should be improved and integrated.