Search

Dignity is a value inherent to all human beings, guaranteed to every individual from birth, and influenced by culture and society. It is protected by various laws and declarations, and represents one of the fundamental human rights. Preserving human dignity is an essential aspect of nursing practice and a central element of care. Dignity is a highly subjective and personal concept; there may be variations in the way that patients perceive it and in the ways that nurses can guarantee it. A systematic review of the qualitative literature was conducted to obtain a comprehensive understanding of adult patients' perceptions of dignity in a hospital setting. This review adhered to the PRISMA Statement for reporting systematic reviews, and the results were reported in accordance with the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) guidelines. Major databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO) were consulted and resulted in the inclusion of 21 studies. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Checklist for Qualitative Studies. Six main themes emerged from the data analysis: (1) The concept of dignity and its various dimensions; (2) The significance of maintaining one's own privacy and confidentiality; (3) The hospital environment's influence on patients' dignity; (4) Healthcare professionals' characteristics and behaviours that affect dignity; (5) The role of communication and the relationship with healthcare providers; and (6) The patient's ability to make choices and be involved actively in their care. These findings underscore the importance of understanding caregivers' perspectives on dignity to ensure that they provide respectful and dignified care and treatment that prioritizes the patient's mental and physical needs., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Paediatric nurses often face complex situations requiring decisions that sometimes clash with their own values and beliefs, or with the needs of the children they care for and their families. Paediatric nurses often use new technology that changes the way they provide care, but also reduces their direct interaction with the child. This may generate ethical issues, which nurses should be able to address in the full respect of the child. Research question and objectives: The purpose of this review is to describe the main ethical dimensions of paediatric nursing. Our research question was, 'What are the most common ethical dimensions and competences related to paediatric nursing?', Research Design: A rapid evidence assessment., Method: According to the principles of the rapid evidence assessment, we searched the PubMed, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases for papers published between January 2001 and March 2015. These papers were then independently read by two researchers and analysed according to the inclusion criteria. Ethical considerations: Since this was a rapid evidence assessment, no approval from the ethics committee was required., Findings: Ten papers met our inclusion criteria. Ethical issues in paediatric nursing were grouped into three areas: (a) ethical issues in paediatric care, (b) social responsibility and (c) decision-making process., Conclusion: Few studies investigate the ethical dimensions and aspects of paediatric nursing, and they are mainly qualitative studies conducted in critical care settings based on nurses' perceptions and experiences. Paediatric nurses require specific educational interventions to help them resolve ethical issues, contribute to the decision-making process and fulfil their role as advocates of a vulnerable population (i.e. sick children and their families). Further research is needed to investigate how paediatric nurses can improve the involvement of children and their families in decision-making processes related to their care plan.

Background: Nurses and nursing students appear vulnerable to moral distress when faced with ethical dilemmas or decision-making in clinical practice. As a result, they may experience professional dissatisfaction and their relationships with patients, families, and colleagues may be compromised. The impact of moral distress may manifest as anger, feelings of guilt and frustration, a desire to give up the profession, loss of self-esteem, depression, and anxiety., Objectives: The purpose of this review was to describe how dilemmas and environmental, relational, and organizational factors contribute to moral distress in undergraduate student nurses during their clinical experience and professional education., Research Design: The research design was a systematic literature review., Method: The search produced a total of 157 articles published between 2004 and 2014. These were screened with the assessment sheet designed by Hawker and colleagues. Four articles matched the search criteria (one quantitative study and three qualitative), and these were separately read and analyzed by the researchers. The process of review and analysis of the data was supervised by a colleague experienced in moral distress who provided an independent quality check., Ethical Consideration: Since this was a systematic review, no ethical approval was required., Findings: From the analysis, it emerged that inequalities and healthcare disparities, the relationship with the mentor, and students' individual characteristics can all impact negatively on the decisions taken and the nursing care provided, generating moral distress. All these factors condition both the clinical experience and learning process, in addition to the professional development and the possible care choices of future nurses., Conclusion: Few studies dealt with moral distress in the setting of nurse education, and there is a knowledge gap related to this phenomenon. The results of this review underline the need for further research regarding interventions that can minimize moral distress in undergraduate nursing students., (© The Author(s) 2015.)