Is physical restraint unethical and illegal?: a qualitative analysis of Korean written judgments
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Jang, Seung Gyeong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Won | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ha, Jeongmin | - |
dc.contributor.author | Choi, Sungkyoung | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-12T01:01:13Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-12T01:01:13Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2024-02 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1472-6955 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/cau/handle/2019.sw.cau/72756 | - |
dc.description.abstract | BackgroundPhysical restraint (PR) is used to ensure the safety of care recipients. However, this causes an ethical dilemma between the autonomy and dignity of the recipients and the provision of effective treatment by health workers. This study aimed to analyze legal and ethical situations related to the use of PR using written judgments.MethodsThis study uses a qualitative retrospective design. Qualitative content analysis was performed on South Korean written judgments. A total of 38 cases from 2015 to 2021 were categorized. The types of court decisions and ethical dilemma situations were examined according to the four principles of bioethics, and the courts' judgments were compared.ResultsWritten judgments related to PR were classified into three types according to the appropriateness of PR use, the presence or absence of duty of care, and legal negligence. Ethical dilemmas were categorized into three situations depending on whether the four principles of bioethics were followed. The courts' decisions regarding the ethical dilemmas differed depending on the situational factors before and after the use of PR and the conflicting conditions of the ethical principles.ConclusionsHealth workers should consider legal and ethical requirements when determining whether to use PR to provide the care recipient with the necessary treatment. | - |
dc.language | 영어 | - |
dc.language.iso | ENG | - |
dc.publisher | BMC | - |
dc.title | Is physical restraint unethical and illegal?: a qualitative analysis of Korean written judgments | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/s12912-024-01781-8 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | BMC NURSING, v.23, no.1 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | Y | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 001156282900004 | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85187149425 | - |
dc.citation.number | 1 | - |
dc.citation.title | BMC NURSING | - |
dc.citation.volume | 23 | - |
dc.type.docType | Article | - |
dc.publisher.location | 영국 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Restraint, physical | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Ethical dilemmas | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Empirical literature | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Dissent and disputes | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Jurisprudence | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Malpractice | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | RISK-FACTORS | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | WARDS | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Nursing | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Nursing | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | ssci | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
84, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea (06974)02-820-6194
COPYRIGHT 2019 Chung-Ang University All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.