Addressing clinician moral distress: Implications from a mixed methods evaluation during Covid-19

Abstract

Clinician moral distress has been documented over the past several decades as occurring within numerous healthcare disciplines, often in relation to clinicians’ involvement in patients’ end-of-life decision-making. The resulting harms impact clinician well-being, patient well-being, and healthcare system functioning. Given Covid-19’s catastrophic death toll and associated demands on end-of-life decision-making processes, the pandemic represents a particularly important context within which to understand clinician moral distress. Thus, we conducted a convergent mixed methods study to examine its prevalence, associations with clinicians’ demographic and professional characteristics, and contributing circumstances among Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians. The study, conducted in April 2021, consisted of a cross-sectional on-line survey of VA clinicians at 20 VA Medical Centers with professional jurisdiction to place life-sustaining treatment orders working who were from a number of select specialties. The survey collected quantitative data on respondents’ demographics, clinical practice characteristics, attitudes and behaviors related to goals of care conversations, intensity of moral distress during “peak-Covid,” and qualitative data via an open-ended item asking for respondents to describe contributing circumstances if they had indicated any moral distress. To understand factors associated with heightened moral distress, we analyzed quantitative data using bivariate and multivariable regression analyses and qualitative data using a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic approach. Mixed methods analysis followed, whereby we compared the quantitative and qualitative datasets and integrated findings at the analytic level. Out of 3,396 eligible VA clinicians, 323 responded to the survey (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most respondents (81%) reported at least some moral distress during peak-Covid. In a multivariable logistic regression, female gender (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.53–7.37) was associated with greater odds of moral distress, and practicing in geriatrics/palliative care (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.18–0.87) and internal medicine/family medicine/primary care (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22–0.98) were associated with reduced odds of moral distress compared to medical subspecialties. From the 191 respondents who completed the open-ended item, five qualitative themes emerged as moral distress contributors: 1) patient visitation restrictions, 2) anticipatory actions, 3) clinical uncertainty related to Covid, 4) resource shortages, and 5) personal risk of contracting Covid. Mixed methods analysis found that quantitative results were consistent with these last two qualitative themes. In sum, clinician moral distress was prevalent early in the pandemic. This moral distress was associated with individual-, system-, and situation-level contributors. These identified contributors represent leverage points for future intervention to mitigate clinician moral distress and its negative outcomes during future healthcare crises and even during everyday clinical care.