How Competitive Orientation Influences Unethical Decision-making in Clinical Practices?

PURPOSE

This study aims to investigate how competitive orientation influences unethical decision-making (UDM) through relationship conflict and the moderating effect of hostile attribution bias.

METHODS

This study was conducted using a self-report questionnaire. Data were collected from 727 employees in Chinese hospitals. For each variable, measures were adopted or adapted from existing literature. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and hierarchical regression analysis. Common method variance was established using Harman's single-factor test.

RESULTS

Competitive orientation is significantly and positively associated with relationship conflict (β = .36, p < .001) and UDM (β = .35, p < .001). Relationship conflict is significantly and positively associated with UDM (β = .51, p < .001). Relationship conflict partially mediates the relationship between competitive orientation and UDM. In addition, hostile attribution bias strengthens the positive relationship between competitive orientation and UDM through relationship conflict.

CONCLUSION

This study provides some implications for hospital employees to deal with ethical dilemmas in decision-making. Hospital employees including nurses, physicians, and other health-care professionals should raise awareness of competitive orientation and adopt a cooperative approach to human relations. Effective training programs should be utilized to direct all hospital employees to depress hostile attribution bias whenever possible to everything in clinical practice.

Commented review of the Colombian legislation regarding the ethics of health research

The scope of ethics in health research transcends its legal framework and the regulations established in Resolution 8430 of 1993. These norms represent a fundamental tool to determine the minimum protection standards for research subjects, and, therefore, they should be known, applied properly, and reflect upon by all researchers in the field.Here I present and discuss from an analytical point of view the regulations that guide research in health. In this framework, health is understood as a multidimensional process, and research in health as a multidisciplinary exercise involving basic, clinical and public health research, collective health, and other related sciences.The main analytical categories are related to the principles and actors involved in research (regulatory authorities, ethical committees, and special or vulnerable subjects and populations), and to professional ethics codes, in addition to informed consents and data management.Despite the contribution of this legislation to the qualification of health research, my conclusion is that the national legislation in ethics for health research requires updating regarding technological and scientific developments, as well as specifications from the multiple types of health studies.

Ethical oversight in quality improvement and quality improvement research: new approaches to promote a learning health care system

BACKGROUND

Institutional review boards (IRBs) distinguish health care quality improvement (QI) and health care quality improvement research (QIR) based primarily on the rigor of the methods used and the purported generalizability of the knowledge gained. Neither of these criteria holds up upon scrutiny. Rather, this apparently false dichotomy may foster under-protection of participants in QI projects and over-protection of participants within QIR.

DISCUSSION

Minimal risk projects should entail minimal oversight including waivers for informed consent for both QI and QIR projects. Minimizing the burdens of conducting QIR, while ensuring minimal safeguards for QI projects, is needed to restore this imbalance in oversight. Potentially, such ethical oversight could be provided by the integration of Institutional Review Boards and Clinical Ethical Committees, using a more integrated and streamlined approach such as a two-step process involving a screening review, followed by a review by committee trained in QIR. Standards for such ethical review and training in these standards, coupled with rapid review cycles, could facilitate an appropriate level of oversight within the context of creating and sustaining learning health care systems. We argue that QI and QIR are not reliably distinguishable. We advocate for approaches that improve protections for QI participants while minimizing over-protection for participants in QIR through reasonable ethical oversight that aligns risk to participants in both QI and QIR with the needs of a learning health care system.