Peter M Dodek1, Monica Norena2, Najib Ayas3, Hubert Wong4. 1. Division of Critical Care Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada; Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada. Electronic address: peter.dodek@ubc.ca. 2. Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada. Electronic address: mnorena@hivnet.ubc.ca. 3. Division of Critical Care Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada; Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada. Electronic address: nayas@providencehealth.bc.ca. 4. Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada. Electronic address: Hubert.wong@ubc.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the association between moral distress and general workplace distress in intensive care unit (ICU) personnel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We administered the Moral Distress Scale Revised and the Job Content Questionnaire to all clinicians (870 nurses, 68 physicians, 452 other health professionals) in 13 ICUs (3 tertiary, 3 large community, 7 small community) in British Columbia, Canada. We used mixed effects regression, treating ICUs as clusters, to examine the association between the Moral Distress Score and each Job Content Questionnaire scale (decision latitude, psychological stressors, social support, psychological strain) after adjusting for age, sex, and years of experience of respondents; separate analyses were done for each profession. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 45%. Nurses and other health professionals had higher moral distress scores than physicians, but there were no differences in general workplace distress scores among professional groups. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, higher moral distress in nurses was associated with lower decision latitude and social support, and with higher psychological stressors and psychological strain. For physicians and other professionals, these relationships were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Moral distress is associated with general workplace distress in ICU personnel. Interventions that ameliorate either type of distress may also ameliorate the other.
PURPOSE: To assess the association between moral distress and general workplace distress in intensive care unit (ICU) personnel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We administered the Moral Distress Scale Revised and the Job Content Questionnaire to all clinicians (870 nurses, 68 physicians, 452 other health professionals) in 13 ICUs (3 tertiary, 3 large community, 7 small community) in British Columbia, Canada. We used mixed effects regression, treating ICUs as clusters, to examine the association between the Moral Distress Score and each Job Content Questionnaire scale (decision latitude, psychological stressors, social support, psychological strain) after adjusting for age, sex, and years of experience of respondents; separate analyses were done for each profession. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 45%. Nurses and other health professionals had higher moral distress scores than physicians, but there were no differences in general workplace distress scores among professional groups. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, higher moral distress in nurses was associated with lower decision latitude and social support, and with higher psychological stressors and psychological strain. For physicians and other professionals, these relationships were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Moral distress is associated with general workplace distress in ICU personnel. Interventions that ameliorate either type of distress may also ameliorate the other.
Authors: Rui Song Ryan Ong; Ruth Si Man Wong; Ryan Choon Hoe Chee; Chrystie Wan Ning Quek; Neha Burla; Caitlin Yuen Ling Loh; Yu An Wong; Amanda Kay-Lyn Chok; Andrea York Tiang Teo; Aiswarya Panda; Sarah Wye Kit Chan; Grace Shen Shen; Ning Teoh; Annelissa Mien Chew Chin; Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 3.263
Authors: Bin Chen; Ting Yang; Lin Tao; Yuqing Song; Ying Liu; Yan Wang; Lei Xiao; Changxia Xu; Hong Chen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Daniela Lemmo; Roberta Vitale; Carmela Girardi; Roberta Salsano; Ersilia Auriemma Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Donald E Pathman; Jeffrey Sonis; Thomas E Rauner; Kristina Alton; Anna S Headlee; Jerry N Harrison Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Noemi Giannetta; Giulia Villa; Loris Bonetti; Sara Dionisi; Andrea Pozza; Stefano Rolandi; Debora Rosa; Duilio Fiorenzo Manara Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Jennifer Hancock; Tobias Witter; Scott Comber; Patricia Daley; Kim Thompson; Stewart Candow; Gisele Follett; Walter Somers; Corry Collins; Janet White; Olga Kits Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 6.713