ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Understanding ethical encounters in a hospital setting: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEducation in ethics is essential for health care workers. Despite mandated ethics education in medical and nursing curricula within Australia and New Zealand, there remains little consistency in format, delivery, or assessment of education. How healthcare workers recognise and respond to ethical challenges in real-world practice remains underexplored. The frequency of experiencing moral distress is significant, particularly among junior doctors and nurses, with triggers including perceived futility, constrained clinical autonomy, and conflicting personal and professional views. We employed a qualitative design to better understand how health professionals experience ethical encounters in their daily practice and how prepared they are to engage with ethical dimensions of patient care. We examine the role of institutional context in shaping ethical awareness while identifying knowledge gaps to inform future ethics training and support requirements.
methodsFocus groups were conducted with n-26 health professionals in Australia. Data were collected in August 2024. Qualitative analyses were used to develop themes and are presented in a descriptive framework. The study is reported in line with Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).
resultsHealthcare workers in this study readily identified the place of ethics in their clinical work. Recognition or awareness of ethics emerged through reflection on their own actions and through collaboration with others. Feelings of voicelessness or powerlessness gave rise to moral distress. Heuristics were often deployed to navigate complexity in ethical encounters. Participants felt prepared to deal with the ethical dimensions of work when they participated in constructive collaboration, had sufficient information and practical experience. The institutional context for ethics was understood as both supportive and as a hinderance. Demarcated responsibilities between professional groups can create challenges while systemic factors, such as financial constraints, also provided challenges and factored into ethical decision making.
conclusionsEthics is a routine feature of care, recognised in moments of uncertainty, disagreement, and constrained decision-making. Exposure to previous formal ethics education varied but was commonly minimal, poorly recalled, or weakly connected to real-time decision-making needs. We argue for greater attention to ethics support for health professionals to aid decision making and reduce distress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.