System-wide assessment using the Measure of Moral Distress - Healthcare professionals.

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Nursing Ethics Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1177/09697330251324296
Adam T Booth, Kathryn L Robinson
{"title":"System-wide assessment using the Measure of Moral Distress - Healthcare professionals.","authors":"Adam T Booth, Kathryn L Robinson","doi":"10.1177/09697330251324296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Moral distress is the inability to do the right thing due to institutional constraints. The Measure of Moral Distress - Healthcare Professionals (MMD-HP) measures this phenomenon and has extensively explored moral distress among nurses. There are limited large-scale research studies using the MMD-HP to identify levels of moral distress across multiple healthcare professionals (HPs) and settings.<b>Research question:</b> What are the overall levels of moral distress among HPs?<b>Research design:</b> A quantitative, exploratory, cross-sectional study of HPs in a healthcare system using the MMD-HP. <b>Participants and research context:</b> Eligible participants included HPs (<i>N</i> = 8,206) working in all inpatient and outpatient units and centers in a multi-site healthcare system located in the Southeastern United States. <b>Ethical considerations:</b> The Institutional Review Board provided approval for this research. A survey preamble supplied information within the learning management system and consent was presumed with survey completion.<b>Findings:</b> A total of 3,561 HPs completed the MMD-HP. The top three morally distressing items included compromised patient care due to inadequate resources, caring for more patients than is safe, and low quality of patient care due to poor team communication. Intensive care unit (ICU) areas had significantly greater moral distress than all other areas (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Formal leaders had the greatest moral distress (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Mixed-acuity and medical-surgical HPs accounted for 22.8% of those who reported considering leaving their current position due to moral distress. Nurses represented 42.2% of those considering leaving their current position due to moral distress.<b>Conclusions:</b> This study uniquely identified that formal leaders and HP participants in the ICU setting had the greatest moral distress. Exploring moral distress is imperative for healthcare systems to decrease turnover, improve engagement, and the quality of patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"9697330251324296"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330251324296","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Moral distress is the inability to do the right thing due to institutional constraints. The Measure of Moral Distress - Healthcare Professionals (MMD-HP) measures this phenomenon and has extensively explored moral distress among nurses. There are limited large-scale research studies using the MMD-HP to identify levels of moral distress across multiple healthcare professionals (HPs) and settings.Research question: What are the overall levels of moral distress among HPs?Research design: A quantitative, exploratory, cross-sectional study of HPs in a healthcare system using the MMD-HP. Participants and research context: Eligible participants included HPs (N = 8,206) working in all inpatient and outpatient units and centers in a multi-site healthcare system located in the Southeastern United States. Ethical considerations: The Institutional Review Board provided approval for this research. A survey preamble supplied information within the learning management system and consent was presumed with survey completion.Findings: A total of 3,561 HPs completed the MMD-HP. The top three morally distressing items included compromised patient care due to inadequate resources, caring for more patients than is safe, and low quality of patient care due to poor team communication. Intensive care unit (ICU) areas had significantly greater moral distress than all other areas (p < 0.001). Formal leaders had the greatest moral distress (p < 0.001). Mixed-acuity and medical-surgical HPs accounted for 22.8% of those who reported considering leaving their current position due to moral distress. Nurses represented 42.2% of those considering leaving their current position due to moral distress.Conclusions: This study uniquely identified that formal leaders and HP participants in the ICU setting had the greatest moral distress. Exploring moral distress is imperative for healthcare systems to decrease turnover, improve engagement, and the quality of patient care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
期刊最新文献
A care ethical perspective on family caregiver burden and support. Nursing ethics and the perspectivity of nursing: Response to '30 years of nursing ethics'. System-wide assessment using the Measure of Moral Distress - Healthcare professionals. Decision-making process regarding passive euthanasia: Theory of planned behavior framework. Nursing students' attitude toward euthanasia following its legalization in Spain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1