Moral Distress in Neonatology.


Journal

Pediatrics
ISSN: 1098-4275
Titre abrégé: Pediatrics
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376422

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2021
Historique:
accepted: 05 03 2021
pubmed: 22 7 2021
medline: 4 1 2022
entrez: 21 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To longitudinally examine the nature of moral distress (MoD) experienced by clinicians caring for extremely low gestational age neonates. Neonatologists, medical trainees, and nurses were surveyed at regular intervals on their experience of MoD and their preferred level of care in relation to 99 neonates born <28 weeks' gestational age managed from birth until discharge or death in 2 tertiary NICUs. Clinicians reporting significant distress (≥6 of 10 on Wocial's Moral Distress Thermometer) were asked to provide open-ended responses on why they experienced MoD. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze frequency and intensity of MoD across different clinician characteristics. Open-ended responses were analyzed by using mixed methods. Over 18 months, 4593 of 5332 surveys (86% response rate) were collected. MoD was reported on 687 (15%) survey occasions; 91% of neonates elicited MoD during their hospitalization. In their open-ended answers, clinicians invoked 5 main themes to explain their distress: (1) infant-centered reasons (83%), including illness severity, predicted outcomes, and disproportionate care; (2) management plans (26%); (3) family-centered reasons (19%); (4) parental decision-making (16%); and (5) provider-centered reasons (15%). MoD was strongly associated with the perception of "parents wanting too much." Neonatologists experienced less distress and were more likely than nurses and trainees to align preferred levels of care with family wishes. The majority of preterm infants will generate some MoD; however, it is rarely shared and of a sustained nature. The main constraint reported by clinicians was "parents wanting too much," leading to disproportionate care.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
To longitudinally examine the nature of moral distress (MoD) experienced by clinicians caring for extremely low gestational age neonates.
METHODS
Neonatologists, medical trainees, and nurses were surveyed at regular intervals on their experience of MoD and their preferred level of care in relation to 99 neonates born <28 weeks' gestational age managed from birth until discharge or death in 2 tertiary NICUs. Clinicians reporting significant distress (≥6 of 10 on Wocial's Moral Distress Thermometer) were asked to provide open-ended responses on why they experienced MoD. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze frequency and intensity of MoD across different clinician characteristics. Open-ended responses were analyzed by using mixed methods.
RESULTS
Over 18 months, 4593 of 5332 surveys (86% response rate) were collected. MoD was reported on 687 (15%) survey occasions; 91% of neonates elicited MoD during their hospitalization. In their open-ended answers, clinicians invoked 5 main themes to explain their distress: (1) infant-centered reasons (83%), including illness severity, predicted outcomes, and disproportionate care; (2) management plans (26%); (3) family-centered reasons (19%); (4) parental decision-making (16%); and (5) provider-centered reasons (15%). MoD was strongly associated with the perception of "parents wanting too much." Neonatologists experienced less distress and were more likely than nurses and trainees to align preferred levels of care with family wishes.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of preterm infants will generate some MoD; however, it is rarely shared and of a sustained nature. The main constraint reported by clinicians was "parents wanting too much," leading to disproportionate care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34285081
pii: peds.2020-031864
doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-031864
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Auteurs

Trisha M Prentice (TM)

Department of Neonatal Medicine trisha.prentice@rch.org.au.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Departments of Paediatrics.

Annie Janvier (A)

Clinical Ethics and Palliative Care Units, Unité de Recherche en Éthique Clinique et Partenariat Famille, Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Department of Pediatrics and Clinical Ethics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Lynn Gillam (L)

Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Children's Bioethics Centre, The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Susan Donath (S)

Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Departments of Paediatrics.

Peter G Davis (PG)

Newborn Research, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Melbourne Medical School.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH