Running head: ETHICAL ANALYSIS 1

Ethical Analysis

Samantha R. Wiederkehr

Grand Canyon University: NSG-324

January 17, 2020

ETHICAL ANALYSIS 2

Ethical Analysis

Quality indicators are evidence-based measures that are used to increase health care

quality and performance. Hospital acquired infections are more common than professionals

would like, and due to this they have become a widely discussed research topic in the nursing

profession. Improving the quality of patient care is something that will always continue to

develop and play an important role in the profession, but a large part of doing so is making sure

to remain ethical along the way. This analysis will discuss a research study on nosocomial

infections, how the study promoted ethical conduct, whether the subjects rights were protected,

and whether the study was ethically sound.

Nosocomial infections are infections that are developed in a hospital, either from lack of

caution or highly resistant organisms, and are common in patients in intensive care units. A study

on nosocomial infections in ICU patients discusses how these patients are more at risk and what

factors are included in the development of these infections. The study researched 1051 ICU

patients that were there for over 1 year. In order to analyze the effects of these infections on

patients, the study took a group of patients that had nosocomial infections and paired them with

patients that did not have any nosocomial infections including their age, gender, clinical

diagnosis, and how their stay was impacted by the infection (Baviskar, Khatib, Rajpal, &

Dongare, 2019, p. 16). By doing this they were able to discover that the length of these patients

stay as well as the mortality rate were considerably increased.

One of the most important part of studies to increase the quality of care is insuring ethical

conduct. According to the article, “The study was approved by the Institutional Ethical

Committee, and the need for consent was waived” (Baviskar, Khatib, Rajpal, & Dongare, 2019,

p. 17). Due to the fact that they were not releasing any of the patients personal information and
ETHICAL ANALYSIS 3

the study was based solely off of statistics, they were not required to gain subjects permission in

order to carry out their research. Although the study was approved by the Institutional Ethical

Committee, the methods they used did not promote ethical conduct. Research misconduct was

not prevented in the situation because the patients right to self-govern was not provided.

In this study the subjects were not given their right to autonomy. They were not only not

asked if they would mind being included in the study, but they were also not even told. Although

the study did no harm to any patients and did show justice, the ethical principle respect for

persons was not included. The study cannot be considered ethical if the subjects rights were not

all given to them. The study also did not provide any proof of providing the subjects justice and

beneficence. Even though the study did not show any evident ways in which it violated these

rights, it did not make it clear on how it would ensure these patient rights.

In conclusion the study was not ethically sound due to the fact that it violated subjects

rights. Although the need for consent was waived, it is still wrong to carry out a study without

giving the patients the ability to choose whether or not they would like to participate in the study.

The fact that the information remains anonymous to the public, the subjects still did not give the

researchers the right to analyze their personal information. If the Institution Ethical Committee

should not have the right to waive subjects consent in studies. The ethical principle respect for

persons would not be set in place if the patients right to autonomy was not so important.
ETHICAL ANALYSIS 4

References

Baviskar, A. S., Khatib, K. I., Rajpal, D., & Dongare, H. C. (2019). Nosocomial infections in

surgical intensive care unit: A retrospective single-center study. International Journal of

Critical Illness & Injury Science, 9(1), 16–20. https://doi-

org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.4103/IJCIIS.IJCIIS_57_18

Quality Improvement and monitoring at your fingertips. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/