7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Moral distress among clinicians working in US safety net practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To explore the causes and levels of moral distress experienced by clinicians caring for the low-income patients of safety net practices in the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Design

          Cross-sectional survey in late 2020, employing quantitative and qualitative analyses.

          Setting

          Safety net practices in 20 US states.

          Participants

          2073 survey respondents (45.8% response rate) in primary care, dental and behavioural health disciplines working in safety net practices and participating in state and national education loan repayment programmes.

          Measures

          Ordinally scaled degree of moral distress experienced during the pandemic, and open-ended response descriptions of issues that caused most moral distress.

          Results

          Weighted to reflect all surveyed clinicians, 28.4% reported no moral distress related to work during the pandemic, 44.8% reported ‘mild’ or ‘uncomfortable’ levels and 26.8% characterised their moral distress as ‘distressing’, ‘intense’ or ‘worst possible’. The most frequently described types of morally distressing issues encountered were patients not being able to receive the best or needed care, and patients and staff risking infection in the office. Abuse of clinic staff, suffering of patients, suffering of staff and inequities for patients were also morally distressing, as were politics, inequities and injustices within the community. Clinicians who reported instances of inequities for patients and communities and the abuse of staff were more likely to report higher levels of moral distress.

          Conclusions

          During the pandemic’s first 9 months, moral distress was common among these clinicians working in US safety net practices. But for only one-quarter was this significantly distressing. As reported for hospital-based clinicians during the pandemic, this study’s clinicians in safety net practices were often morally distressed by being unable to provide optimal care to patients. New to the literature is clinicians’ moral distress from witnessing inequities and other injustices for their patients and communities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and Practical Guidelines

          Evaluating the intercoder reliability (ICR) of a coding frame is frequently recommended as good practice in qualitative analysis. ICR is a somewhat controversial topic in the qualitative research community, with some arguing that it is an inappropriate or unnecessary step within the goals of qualitative analysis. Yet ICR assessment can yield numerous benefits for qualitative studies, which include improving the systematicity, communicability, and transparency of the coding process; promoting reflexivity and dialogue within research teams; and helping convince diverse audiences of the trustworthiness of the analysis. Few guidelines exist to help researchers negotiate the assessment of ICR in qualitative analysis. The current article explains what ICR is, reviews common arguments for and against its incorporation in qualitative analysis and offers guidance on the practical elements of performing an ICR assessment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Hong Kong in 2003: stress and psychological impact among frontline healthcare workers.

            The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) posed an unprecedented threat and a great challenge to health professionals in Hong Kong. The study reported here aimed at investigating the origin of stress and psychological morbidity among frontline healthcare workers in response to this catastrophe. Self-administered questionnaires were sent to frontline healthcare workers in three hospitals. The General Health Questionnaire was used to identify psychological distress. Socio-demographic and stress variables were entered into a logistic regression analysis to find out the variables associated with psychological morbidity. The response rate was 40 %. Sixty-eight per cent of participants reported a high level of stress. About 57 % were found to have experienced psychological distress. The healthcare workers' psychological morbidity was best understood by the perceptions of personal vulnerability, stress and support in the workplace. These findings shed light on the need for hospital administrators to be aware of the extent and sources of stress and psychological distress among frontline healthcare workers during disease outbreak.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              The coding manual for qualitative researcher

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                25 August 2022
                25 August 2022
                : 12
                : 8
                : e061369
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Family Medicine , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine , Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                [3 ] departmentDepartments of Social Medicine and Family Medicine , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine , Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                [4 ] departmentOffice of Rural Health , Division of Public Health, Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services , Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
                [5 ] departmentDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences , Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville, Tennessee, USA
                [6 ] departmentCollege of Architecture , University of Nebraska-Lincoln , Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
                [7 ] New Mexico Health Resources, Inc , Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Donald E Pathman; don_pathman@ 123456unc.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6708-3707
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-061369
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061369
                9421917
                36008061
                6a5e85e4-682c-41b7-a1d6-4d7246a7f3f2
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 24 January 2022
                : 25 July 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006108, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences;
                Award ID: CTSA-UL1TR002489
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000102, Health Resources and Services Administration;
                Award ID: U81HP26495
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                1506
                2474
                1704
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                free

                Medicine
                human resource management,medical ethics,primary care,qualitative research
                Medicine
                human resource management, medical ethics, primary care, qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article