Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39039490›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical ethics2024

Evaluation of an interactive education workshop on hospital pharmacists' ethical reasoning: an observational study.

Nallini McCleery, Adam La Caze, Karl Winckel, H Laetitia Hattingh

Abstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nallini McCleeryPharmacy Department, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, 1 Hospital Blvd, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia. nallini.mccleery@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2311-4994
Adam La CazeSchool of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Level 4, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6802-6141
Karl WinckelSchool of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Level 4, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7640-1471
H Laetitia HattinghSchool of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Level 4, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4553-743X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmacists are often faced with scenarios in practice that require application of ethical reasoning and decision-making skills. There is limited research on the ethical decision-making processes of hospital pharmacists. Pharmacists who are compassionate and put the interests of their patients first are thought to positively impact on patient care, but there are often complex health-care system pressures in the hospital setting that cause pharmacists to behave in ways that may conflict with professional values and behaviours. This multisite study aimed to evaluate an interactive education workshop on hospital pharmacists' ethical reasoning skills and explore the need for ongoing training and support.

methodsThis mixed-methods study was carried out across two health services including three hospitals. It incorporated a pre-workshop survey, a feedback survey immediately post-workshop and a third survey four weeks after the workshop. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital pharmacists at least four weeks after the ethics workshop.

resultsIn total, 32 participants completed the pre-workshop survey, nominating peers/colleagues as the most common source of support they would consult to inform ethical decision-making (17/118 sources of support). Almost all (n = 31/33; 94%) strongly agreed/agreed that the education session provided them with ethical reasoning skills and a process/framework which they could use when faced with an ethical issue. Pre- and post-survey responses showed increased self-confidence in identifying the regulatory frameworks applicable to pharmacy privacy requirements (p = 0.011) and ethical issues applicable to pharmacy privacy requirements (p = 0.002), as well as applying ethical reasoning to scenarios that involve pharmacy privacy dilemmas/issues (p = 0.004). Participants' self confidence in knowing where to find support when faced with clinical and non-clinical ethics questions was improved (p = 0.002 and p = 0.003 respectively). Participants supported the introduction of quarterly ethics cafes after the workshop, compared to before the workshop (p = 0.001).

conclusionHospital pharmacists rely on discussions with colleagues to brainstorm how to address ethical issues. This study showed that a targeted interactive education workshop facilitated familiarity with ethics resources and decision-making processes. It also demonstrated that this approach could be used to enhance hospital pharmacists' readiness, confidence, and capabilities to recognise and respond to challenging ethical issues.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPharmacistsAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelEducationEducation, Pharmacy, ContinuingEthics, PharmacyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPharmacy Service, HospitalSurveys and QuestionnairesEthical reasoningEthics educationHospital pharmacistsMedication managementPrivacy and confidentiality

Identifiers

PMID39039490
PMCPMC11264360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.