Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
In their paper (‘Morisprudence: a theoretical framework for studying the relationship linking moral case deliberation, organisational learning and quality improvement‘),1 Kok et al addresses an important topic: how to theoretically think about studying the impact of moral case deliberations and how to conceptualise organisational learning? In this article, they aim to develop a theoretical framework that provides empirically assessable hypotheses that describe the relationship between moral case deliberation and care quality at an organisational level. The authors describe care quality mostly in terms of practical wisdom which they aggregate into both individual and organisational morisprudence. Morisprudence is defined as an ongoing formulation of moral judgements. However, it remains a bit unclear how the theoretical framework of Kok et al may lead to empirically assessable hypotheses. Concepts like ‘quality’, ‘quality of care’, ‘practical wisdom’ and ‘individual and organisational morisprudence’ are not described in detail, let alone operationalised in measurable terms. How should we understand morisprudence in empirical terms? What is a good morisprudence? And how should we measure or conclude whether morisprudence has been improved (or not)?
Multiple goals of MCD and multiple ways of learning
The authors rightfully focus on the need for organisational learning during and through Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). Too often, MCD is only described as the discussion of one patient’s case, thereby implicitly suggesting that the learning process only takes place at the level of an individual case. Yet, based on many years of MCD evaluation research, we know from mostly …
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.