Mental burden and moral distress among oncologists and oncology nurses in Germany during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: There is evidence for mental burden and moral distress among healthcare workers during the pandemic. However, there is scarcity of analyses regarding possible correlations of mental burden and moral distress in this context. This study provides data to quantify mental burden and possible associations with moral distress among physicians and nurses working in oncology in Germany. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with physicians and nurses working in oncology in Germany between March and July 2021. Next to sociodemographic characteristics and working conditions, mental burden and moral distress were assessed using standardized instruments. Binary multivariate logistic regression using the enter method was performed in order to explore the relationship between mental burden and moral distress. RESULTS: 121 physicians and 125 nurses were included in the study. Prevalence of clinically relevant depressive symptoms, anxiety, somatic symptoms, burnout symptoms and moral distress was 19.2, 14.5, 12.7, 46.0 and 34.7% in physicians and 41.4, 24.0, 46.8, 46.6 and 60.0% in nurses respectively. Mental burden was significantly associated with moral distress, being female/diverse, younger age < 40 and increase in workload. Nurses who felt sufficiently protected from COVID-19 reported significantly less moral distress. CONCLUSION: To improve pandemic resilience, there is a need to ensure safe working environment including psychosocial support. Further evidence on risk and protective factors for moral distress is needed to be able to develop and implement strategies to protect healthcare workers within and beyond the pandemic.

Effect of clinical peer review on mortality in patients ventilated for more than 24 hours: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical peer review is a well-established instrument for improving quality of care, clinical effectiveness is unclear. METHODS: In a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned 60 German Initiative Qualitätsmedizin member hospitals with the highest mortality rates in ventilated patients in 2016 to intervention and control groups. The primary outcome was hospital mortality rate in patients ventilated fore more than 24 hours. Clinical peer review was conducted in intervention group hospitals only. We assessed the impact of clinical peer review on mortality using a difference-in-difference approach by applying weighted least squares (WLS) regression to changes in age-adjusted and sex-adjusted standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) 1 year before and 1 year after treatment. Recommendations for improvement from clinical peer review and hospital survey data were used for impact and process analysis. RESULTS: We analysed 12 058 and 13 016 patients ventilated fore more than 24 hours in the intervention and control hospitals within the 1-year observation period. In-hospital mortality rates and SMRs were 40.6% and 1.23 in intervention group and 41.9% and 1.28 in control group hospitals in the preintervention period, respectively. The groups showed similar hospital (bed size, ownership) and patient (age, sex, mortality, main indications) characteristics. WLS regression did not yield a significant difference between intervention and control groups regarding changes in SMRs (estimate=0.04, 95% CI= -0.05 to 0.13, p=0.38). Mortality remained high in both groups (intervention: 41.8%, control: 42.1%). Impact and process analysis indicated few perceived outcome improvements or implemented process improvements following the introduction of clinical peer review. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not provide evidence for reductions in mortality in patients ventilated for more than 24 hours due to clinical peer review. A stronger focus on identification of structures and care processes related to mortality is required to improve the effectiveness of clinical peer review.