Ethics In Healthcare Discussion Question Two Nurse Researche

Ethics In Healthcarediscussion Questiontwo Nurse Researchers Are Inter

Ethics in Healthcare Discussion Question Two nurse researchers are interested in studying whether a pain assessment tool for critical care patients is valid and reliable when applied to a group of patients who cannot communicate verbally due to mechanical ventilation. They design a validation study in which randomly selected patients will be assessed using the tool after a painful procedure (tracheal suctioning) and after a nonpainful procedure (oral care). If patient responses result in higher scores after the painful procedure than after the nonpainful one, then the researchers will conclude that the tool is effective for these patients in differentiating pain responses from responses to nursing procedures in general. Using the definitions in the textbook: Discuss and draw a conclusion as to whether this study will likely be exempt, expedited, or full review. Would the study be considered ethical? Explain your rationale.

Paper For Above instruction

The proposed study by nurse researchers to evaluate the validity and reliability of a pain assessment tool in non-verbal mechanically ventilated patients necessitates a careful ethical review process. According to research regulations and institutional review board (IRB) guidelines, studies involving minimal risk to participants are often eligible for an exempt review, whereas those involving more than minimal risk or vulnerable populations typically require expedited or full review.

In this case, the study involves assessing pain responses through observational methods during routine nursing procedures—tracheal suctioning and oral care. Since these are standard care procedures with the potential to cause pain, the study inherently involves some level of risk. However, the researchers are not introducing any additional interventions beyond typical clinical care, and the risk to patients primarily pertains to the possible discomfort or pain during assessments.

An exempt review generally applies when research poses minimal risk and involves existing data, public behavior observation, or educational tests. In this scenario, since the study involves active assessment of pain responses but does not modify the standard procedures and minimizes additional risk, it could be considered for expedited review. Expedited review is appropriate when the research involves no more than minimal risk and fits within categories specified by IRB guidelines, such as research involving the collection of data through non-invasive procedures.

The ethical evaluation of this study also hinges on considerations of informed consent, patient vulnerability, and protection from harm. Patients in the intensive care unit are a vulnerable population due to their critical health status and potential inability to give fully informed consent. The study's design must ensure that consent is obtained from legally authorized representatives, and that participation does not adversely affect the standard of care or subject patients to unnecessary discomfort. Ensuring the pain assessment is non-invasive and does not prolong or worsen patient suffering aligns with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.

Furthermore, the assessment method must be valid and used appropriately within the clinical context. Since the tool is being validated, it is crucial that the process includes measures to protect patient dignity and prevent additional suffering. If these conditions are met, and the risk remains minimal, the study can be ethically justified.

Overall, this research study would likely qualify for expedited review due to its minimal risk nature and routine procedures involved, provided appropriate safeguards are implemented. Ethically, conducting the study aligns with core principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice if proper consent and protections are in place. Ensuring the patient's safety and rights are prioritized supports the study's ethical acceptability and potential to contribute valuable knowledge to pain management in non-verbal critically ill patients.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.
• Bell, J. S. (2014). Research ethics: A philosophical guide. Oxford University Press.
• Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Protection of Human Subjects Regulations (45 CFR 46). Office for Human Research Protections.
• Hood, L., & Oppenheim, A. (2019). Ethical considerations in clinical research involving vulnerable populations. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(3), 185-192.
• Institute of Medicine. (2011). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. National Academies Press.
• Levine, R., & Weijer, C. (2017). Ethical issues in neonatal clinical trials. Clinical Ethics, 12(4), 188-194.
• National Institutes of Health. (2020). Guidelines for research involving human subjects. NIH Research Ethics Program.
• Schroeder, R., & London, V. (2018). Pain assessment in non-verbal patients: Ethical considerations. Nursing Ethics, 25(2), 205-213.
• World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191-2194.
• Zimmerman, C., & Williams, J. (2016). Ethical issues in critical care research. Critical Care Medicine, 44(3), 501-508.