Dataset Information

Moral distress and ethical climate in intensive care medicine during COVID-19: a nationwide study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has created ethical challenges for intensive care unit (ICU) professionals, potentially causing moral distress. This study explored the levels and causes of moral distress and the ethical climate in Dutch ICUs during COVID-19.

Methods

An extended version of the Measurement of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals (MMD-HP) and Ethical Decision Making Climate Questionnaire (EDMCQ) were online distributed among all 84 ICUs. Moral distress scores in nurses and intensivists were compared with the historical control group one year before COVID-19.

Results

Three hundred forty-five nurses (70.7%), 40 intensivists (8.2%), and 103 supporting staff (21.1%) completed the survey. Moral distress levels were higher for nurses than supporting staff. Moral distress levels in intensivists did not differ significantly from those of nurses and supporting staff. "Inadequate emotional support for patients and their families" was the highest-ranked cause of moral distress for all groups of professionals. Of all factors, all professions rated the ethical climate most positively regarding the culture of mutual respect, ethical awareness and support. "Culture of not avoiding end-of-life-decisions" and "Self-reflective and empowering leadership" received the lowest mean scores. Moral distress scores during COVID-19 were significantly lower for ICU nurses (p < 0.001) and intensivists (p < 0.05) compared to one year prior.

Conclusion

Levels and causes of moral distress vary between ICU professionals and differ from the historical control group. Targeted interventions that address moral distress during a crisis are desirable to improve the mental health and retention of ICU professionals and the quality of patient care.

SUBMITTER: Donkers MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8211309 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs 'disease detectives' and directors of public health programs, field epidemiologists play essential roles in protecting public health. Although ethical issues receive considerable attention in medical and research settings, less is known about ethical challenges faced by field epidemiologists in public health programs. Similarly, little is known about moral distress among field epidemiologists, i.e., situations in which they are constrained from acting on what they know to be morally right. Moral distress is strongly associated with empathy fatigue, burnout, reduced job retention, and disengagement. To better understand ethics training needs for field epidemiologists, in February 2019, members of TEPHIConnect, an online and mobile networking platform for Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) alumni, were invited to participate in an anonymous survey about ethical challenges and moral distress.ResultsAmong 126 respondents from 54 countries, leading causes of ethical dilemmas included inadequate informed consent (61%), inequitable allocation of resources (49%), and conflicts of interest (43%). These occur primarily in settings of disease outbreaks (60%); research (55%); and public health programs at the state, province, or national level (45%) or community level (43%). Work-related moral distress was reported by 91% of respondents, including 26% who experience it "frequently" or "almost always." Field epidemiologists working in low- and low-middle income countries were more likely to report moral distress "frequently" or "almost always" than those in higher-income countries (33.0% vs 9.1%, P = 0.006). The most common perceived contributors to moral distress included excessive stress and work demands (30%) and inadequate support from leaders (25%).ConclusionsField epidemiologists face significant work-related ethical challenges, which are endemic to public health and political systems. A substantial proportion of field epidemiologists also experience some degree of moral distress, often in association with these challenges. These findings indicate an unmet need among field epidemiologists for support in navigating ethical challenges, as well as for resources to address the human and professional consequences of moral distress.

Project description:BackgroundThere have been no studies to date of moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in national samples of U.S. health workers. The purpose of this study was to determine, in a national sample of internal medicine physicians (internists) in the U.S.: 1) the intensity of moral distress; 2) the predictors of moral distress; 3) the outcomes of moral distress.MethodsWe conducted a national survey with an online panel of internists, representative of the membership of the American College of Physicians, the largest specialty organization of physicians in the United States, between September 21 and October 8, 2020. Moral distress was measured with the Moral Distress Thermometer, a one-item scale with a range of 0 ("none") to 10 ("worst possible"). Outcomes were measured with short screening scales.ResultsThe response rate was 37.8% (N = 810). Moral distress intensity was low (mean score = 2.4, 95% CI, 2.2-2.6); however, 13.3% (95% CI, 12.1% - 14.5%) had a moral distress score greater than or equal to 6 ("distressing"). In multiple linear regression models, perceived risk of death if infected with COVID-19 was the strongest predictor of higher moral distress (β (standardized regression coefficient) = 0.26, p < .001), and higher perceived organizational support (respondent belief that their health organization valued them) was most strongly associated with lower moral distress (β = -0.22, p < .001). Controlling for other factors, high levels of moral distress, but not low levels, were strongly associated (adjusted odds ratios 3.0 to 11.5) with screening positive for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, burnout, and intention to leave patient care.ConclusionsThe intensity of moral distress among U.S. internists was low overall. However, the 13% with high levels of moral distress had very high odds of adverse mental health outcomes. Organizational support may lower moral distress and thereby prevent adverse mental health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundProviding palliative care at the end of life (EOL) in intensive care units (ICUs) seems to be modified during the COVID-19 pandemic with potential burden of moral distress to health care providers (HCPs). We seek to assess the practice of EOL care during the COVID-19 pandemic in ICUs in the Czech Republic focusing on the level of moral distress and its possible modifiable factors.MethodsBetween 16 June 2021 and 16 September 2021, a national, cross-sectional study in intensive care units (ICUs) in Czech Republic was performed. All physicians and nurses working in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in the study. For questionnaire development ACADEMY and CHERRIES guide and checklist were used. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyse possible modifiable factors of moral distress.ResultsIn total, 313 HCPs (14.5% out of all HCPs who opened the questionnaire) fully completed the survey. Results showed that 51.8% (n = 162) of respondents were exposed to moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. 63.1% (n = 113) of nurses and 71.6% of (n = 96) physicians had experience with the perception of inappropriate care. If inappropriate care was perceived, a higher chance for the occurrence of moral distress for HCPs (OR, 1.854; CI, 1.057-3.252; p = 0.0312) was found. When patients died with dignity, the chance for moral distress was lower (OR, 0.235; CI, 0.128-0.430; p < 0.001). The three most often reported differences in palliative care practice during pandemic were health system congestion, personnel factors, and characteristics of COVID-19 infection.ConclusionsHCPs working at ICUs experienced significant moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic. The major sources were perceiving inappropriate care and dying of patients without dignity. Improvement of the decision-making process and communication at the end of life could lead to a better ethical and safety climate.Trial registrationNCT04910243 .