The Perceptions of Healthcare Staff Regarding Moral Injury and the Impact on Staff Life and Work During COVID-19: A Scoping Review of International Evidence.

The COVID-19 response introduced legal restrictions on social distancing globally, affecting healthcare staff personally and professionally. These restrictions suspended routine hospital visiting, which may have left staff feeling they had to compromise on the care they provided. Such conflict may be experienced as moral injury. This scoping review aimed to synthesise international evidence, to answer this question: "Have COVID-19 restrictions affected healthcare staff's experiences of moral injury? If so, how?" Nine studies met the search criteria. Although healthcare staff seemed to be aware of the risks and effects of moral injury, they were still reluctant to "name" it. Healthcare staff's own emotional and spiritual needs were mostly ignored. Although psychological support is often the recommended approach by organisations, a greater focus on spiritual and emotional support is recommended.

Cancer nursing research priorities: A rapid review.

PURPOSE: Identifying cancer nursing research priorities is central to influencing the direction of cancer care research. The aim of this rapid review was to explore research priorities identified by oncology nurses for cancer care delivery between 2019 and 2022. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis informed the design of the rapid review. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PUBMED, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between December 1st, 2018, and September 30th, 2022. This timeframe was chosen to account for the latest relevant evidence synthesis, as well as changes in cancer care necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Quality Assessment of Diverse Studies tool was used to appraise quality. RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. Many of the research priorities identified were influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The top cancer nursing research priority identified was the role of technology in improving patient and caregiver symptoms and health outcomes. Other most prevalent research priorities were focused on symptom management, culturally sensitive palliative and psychosocial care, early/integrated palliative care, financial toxicity, modifiable risk factors related to social determinants of health, public and patient involvement in research, and oncology nurses' well-being and scope of practice. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a need to steer a strategic programme of cancer nursing research towards digitalisation in cancer care to meet the current needs of people living with cancer and their caregivers. However, cancer nurses' burnout, staff shortages and disparities in specialist education will hinder the implementation of certain models of care.

Real time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy for cancer: European multicentre randomised controlled trial (eSMART).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of remote monitoring of adjuvant chemotherapy related side effects via the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) on symptom burden, quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-efficacy, and work limitations. DESIGN: Multicentre, repeated measures, parallel group, evaluator masked, stratified randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twelve cancer centres in Austria, Greece, Norway, Republic of Ireland, and UK. PARTICIPANTS: 829 patients with non-metastatic breast cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's disease, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving first line adjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy for the first time in five years. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to ASyMS (intervention; n=415) or standard care (control; n=414) over six cycles of chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was symptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale; MSAS). Secondary outcomes were health related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G), Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Revised (STAI-R), Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-Cancer), and work limitations questionnaire (WLQ). RESULTS: For the intervention group, symptom burden remained at pre-chemotherapy treatment levels, whereas controls reported an increase from cycle 1 onwards (least squares absolute mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.19 to -0.12; P<0.001; Cohen's D effect size=0.5). Analysis of MSAS sub-domains indicated significant reductions in favour of ASyMS for global distress index (-0.21, -0.27 to -0.16; P<0.001), psychological symptoms (-0.16, -0.23 to -0.10; P<0.001), and physical symptoms (-0.21, -0.26 to -0.17; P<0.001). FACT-G scores were higher in the intervention group across all cycles (mean difference 4.06, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 5.46; P<0.001), whereas mean scores for STAI-R trait (-1.15, -1.90 to -0.41; P=0.003) and STAI-R state anxiety (-1.13, -2.06 to -0.20; P=0.02) were lower. CASE-Cancer scores were higher in the intervention group (mean difference 0.81, 0.19 to 1.43; P=0.01), and most SCNS-SF34 domains were lower, including sexuality needs (-1.56, -3.11 to -0.01; P<0.05), patient care and support needs (-1.74, -3.31 to -0.16; P=0.03), and physical and daily living needs (-2.8, -5.0 to -0.6; P=0.01). Other SCNS-SF34 domains and WLQ were not significantly different. Safety of ASyMS was satisfactory. Neutropenic events were higher in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reduction in symptom burden supports the use of ASyMS for remote symptom monitoring in cancer care. A "medium" Cohen's effect size of 0.5 showed a sizable, positive clinical effect of ASyMS on patients' symptom experiences. Remote monitoring systems will be vital for future services, particularly with blended models of care delivery arising from the covid-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02356081.

COVID-19 and Hospital Palliative Care - A service evaluation exploring the symptoms and outcomes of 186 patients and the impact of the pandemic on specialist Hospital Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 have increased morbidity and mortality, which requires extensive involvement of specialist Hospital Palliative Care Teams. Evaluating the response to the surge in demand for effective symptom management can enhance provision of Palliative Care in this patient population. AIM: To characterise the symptom profile, symptom management requirements and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 positive patients referred for Palliative Care, and to contextualise Palliative Care demands from COVID-19 against a 'typical' caseload from 2019. DESIGN: Service evaluation based on a retrospective cohort review of patient records. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: One large health board in Scotland. Demographic data, patient symptoms, drugs/doses for symptom control, and patient outcomes were captured for all COVID-19 positive patients referred to Hospital Palliative Care Teams between 30th March and 26th April 2020. RESULTS: Our COVID-19 cohort included 186 patients (46% of all referrals). Dyspnoea and agitation were the most prevalent symptoms (median 2 symptoms per patient). 75% of patients were prescribed continuous subcutaneous infusion for symptom control, which was effective in 78.6% of patients. Compared to a 'typical' caseload, the COVID-19 cohort were on caseload for less time (median 2 vs 5 days; p < 0.001) and had a higher death rate (80.6% vs 30.3%; p < 0.001). The COVID-19 cohort replaced 'typical' caseload; overall numbers of referrals were not increased. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalised COVID-19 positive patients referred for Palliative Care may have a short prognosis, differ from 'typical' caseload, and predominantly suffer from dyspnoea and agitation. Such symptoms can be effectively controlled with standard doses of opioids and benzodiazepines.