Addressing Moral Distress: lessons Learnt from a Non-Interventional Longitudinal Study on Moral Distress.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress is prevalent within the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and can negatively affect clinicians. Studies have evaluated the causes of moral distress and interventions to mitigate its harmful effects. However, the effects of participating in moral distress studies have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of participation in a longitudinal, non-intervention research project on moral distress in the NICU. DESIGN: Clinicians who previously participated in an 18-month longitudinal research study on moral distress at two NICUs were invited to complete a questionnaire on the impact of participation. The original study required regular completion of surveys that sought predictions of death, disability and the intensity/nature of moral distress experienced by clinicians caring for extremely preterm babies. Individual and unit-wide effects were explored. Free-text responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 249/463 (53%) eligible clinicians participated. Participation in the original 18-month study was perceived as having a positive impact by 58% of respondents. Clinicians found articulating their views therapeutic (76%) and useful in clarifying personal opinions about the babies (85%). Free-text responses revealed the research stimulated increased reflection, validated feelings and increased dialogue amongst clinicians. Respondents generally did not find participation distressing (70%). However, a small number of physicians felt the focus of discussion shifted from the baby to the clinicians. Intensity and prevalence of moral distress did not significantly change over the 18-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Participating in moral distress research prompted regular reflection regarding attitudes toward fragile patients, improving ethical awareness. This is useful in clarifying personal views that may influence patient care. Participation also enhanced communication around difficult clinical scenarios and improved provider satisfaction. These factors are insufficient to significantly reduce moral distress in isolation.

Deferred Consent in Neonatal Clinical Research: Why, When, How?

Deferred consent has gained traction in some countries as a possible adjunct to prospective consent for evaluating emergency therapies in the neonatal population. This form of consent has been shown to increase recruitment of acutely and critically unwell patients, potentially reduce parent decision-making burden, and provide more robust evidence for clinical treatments where equipoise exists. However, deferred consent raises complex ethical concerns and guidelines for its use vary across different jurisdictions. The views of all stakeholders, including neonatal providers and parents, are important in determining the appropriateness of deferred consent in high-risk patients. Deferred consent may be ethically justifiable for assessing various treatments, particularly those used in emergency medical management. We present a framework based on neonatal deferred consent trials that assess both non-drug and drug interventions, our experience conducting deferred consent neonatal studies in Australia, and the views of providers and parents on how to best implement deferred consent in the neonatal research setting.

Interventions to reduce moral distress in clinicians working in intensive care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to mitigate the harmful effects of moral distress experienced by nursing and medical clinicians working in the intensive care setting. DESIGN: Eligible studies were identified from searches of PubMed, EBSCO (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL and Medline) and Scopus. Included studies were published prior to 20 August 2020. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this review comprising three randomised controlled trials, seven quasi-randomised trials and two observational studies. Nine studies reported interventions targeting only nurses while three included both nurses and doctors. The types of interventions identified included: moral empowerment programs, end-of-life educational programs, reflective exercises through individual narrative writing or group reflective debriefing, multidisciplinary case debriefing meetings integrated into clinical practice and moral resiliency training. Due to the overall low methodological quality and high risk of bias, no single intervention may be considered efficacious in managing moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence that some currently available interventions reduce the moral distress experienced by intensive care health care providers. Larger randomised trials involving all intensive healthcare clinicians are required to evaluate multifaceted interventions.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Barrier Dressing to Reduce Nasal Injury in Preterm Infants Receiving Binasal Noninvasive Respiratory Support.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of a hydrocolloid nasal barrier dressing during binasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, compared with no barrier dressing, reduces the rate of nasal injury in very preterm and/or very low birth weight infants. STUDY DESIGN: A single-center randomized controlled trial conducted in the neonatal intensive care unit at The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne. Eligible infants were born <30 weeks of gestation and/or with birth weight <1250 g, and had received ≥4 hours, but <48 hours, of CPAP. Infants were randomly allocated to receive either a hydrocolloid nasal barrier dressing during CPAP (barrier group), or no barrier dressing (no barrier group). The primary outcome was the incidence of any nasal injury during CPAP support, until the infant was both >30 weeks of postmenstrual age and >1250 g, unless CPAP therapy was stopped earlier. Nasal injury was regularly assessed by bedside nurses using a standardized form. RESULTS: A total of 108 preterm infants were enrolled: 53 infants in the barrier group and 55 infants in the no barrier group. Infants in the barrier group had a significantly lower rate of nasal injury compared with the no barrier group: 18 of 53 (34%) vs 31 of 55 (56%), respectively (P = .02), number needed to treat; 5 infants. No significant differences were detected in any secondary respiratory outcomes, or in the rate of common neonatal morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic use of a nasal barrier dressing within 48 hours of commencing treatment with binasal CPAP in very preterm or very low birth weight infants reduces nasal injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12616000438459.

Nasal injury in preterm infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Binasal prongs are the most commonly used interface for the delivery of nasal positive airway pressure (CPAP) to preterm infants. However, they are associated with pressure-related nasal injury, which causes pain and discomfort. Nasal injury may necessitate a change in interface and occasionally damage is severe enough to require surgical repair. We aim to determine the incidence and risk factors for nasal injury in preterm infants, and to provide clinicians with strategies to effectively prevent and treat it. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic search of databases including MEDLINE (PubMed including the Cochrane Library), EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus. Included studies enrolled human preterm infants and were published prior to 20 February 2017. RESULTS: Forty-five studies were identified, including 14 ra ndomised controlled trials, 10 observational studies, two cohort studies, eight case reports and 11 reviews. The incidence of nasal injury in preterm infants ranged from 20-100%. Infants born <30 weeks' gestation are at highest risk. Strategies shown to reduce nasal injury included: nasal barrier dressings (2 studies, n=244, risk ratio (RD) -0.12, 95%, CI - 0.20 to -0.04), nasal high flow therapy as an alternative to binasal prong CPAP (7 studies, n=1570, risk difference (RD) -0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.10), and nasal masks rather than binasal prongs (5 studies, n=544, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nasal injury is common in preterm infants born <30 weeks' gestational age receiving CPAP via binasal prongs. Larger randomised trials are required to fully evaluate strategies to reduce nasal injury.