Background:In the past two decades, interest in the concept of ethical climate and in its research has increased in healthcare. Ethical climate is viewed as a type of organizational work climate, and defined as the shared perception of ethically correct behavior, and how ethical issues should be handled in the organization. Ethical climate as an important element of nursing environment has been the focus of several studies. However, scoping reviews of ethical climate research in nursing have not been conducted to (...) guide further research in this area.Objective:The purpose of this scoping review is to describe and analyze studies focusing on ethical climate in nursing environment to elicit an overall picture of the research in this field.Methods:A scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O’Malley and Levac et al. was used. Studies were identified by conducting electronic searches on PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO, and Scopus and Philosophers’ Index databases. Of 1051 citations, 56 articles matched the inclusion criteria.Ethical considerations:This study was conducted according to good scientific guidelines.Findings:Ethical climate is a topical research area which has been explored with different methods and outcomes, in different environments, and has mainly been perceived positively. The focus of the studies was on finding associations between ethical climate and work-related factors such as job satisfaction, moral distress, and turnover intentions. Methodologically, research was rather homogeneous using quantitative, descriptive, and correlative research designs.Conclusion:Novel perspectives and more diverse methodological approaches paying attentions to issues affecting generalizability of the findings could expand our knowledge in this area. (shrink)

This study explored the perceptions of ethics among long-term care employees (N275) in order to test two hypotheses. A cohort cross-sectional survey examined employees’ perceptions of an ethics environment, racial-ethnic, and position disparities (HO1; ANOVA), and, secondarily, ethics in relationship to select, research-grounded work features measured as manage disagreements, effectiveness, work satisfaction, and opinions of care, the latter including intention to remain (HO2; Pearson Correlations). Established questionnaires with robust psychometrics were employed. Response rate was 51%. Non-significant differences between sample and (...) population on key variables supported extrapolation of results. Statistically significant differences between racial–ethnic (p < 0.03; F 2.42) and work positions (p <0.0001; F 6.24) were revealed on ethics (3.16; HO1). Statistically significant relationships (p <0.0001; r = 0.26–0.68; HO2) between ethics and employees’ work features also were found, confirming both hypotheses. Perceptions of ethics based on racial-ethnic and position disparities, as well as the robust links with employee work features, offered potential avenues for decreasing disparities at work and improving the quality of long-term care. Noted further on ethics item scoring were relatively low scores indicating less involvement in, and access to, ethics discussions and decisions. In contrast, the literature review substantiated the importance of empowerment and retention, which were enhanced by employee involvement in work, notably, discussions and decisions. Thus, implications of ethics committees in long-term care sites as ways to potentially enhance employees’ work and quality of care, especially work satisfaction and retention, were explored; relevant concerns raised by the Covid pandemic were, briefly, discussed. (shrink)

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of physicians on HEC including structural and process features. Four committees were selected from among 12 volunteering to participate with 12 sessions observed. Power analysis confirmed an adequate number of communication exchanges, and no statistical significant difference among two prior surveys affirmed the sample. Data collection included established questionnaires and communication analyses with a tested method. Results revealed physician presence was robust and similar to prior reports on HEC structure; however, (...) physicians rated their role effectiveness lower than other occupations and lower than overall committee effectiveness. Communication exchanges representing process revealed three positive communication types, and consistent attempts to aid committee functions through consensual processes that also were substantiated by non-physician members. Findings suggested more attention to both structural and process functions of HEC and their members. (shrink)