A divided community: A descriptive qualitative study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses and their relationships.

AIMS: To identify the personal and professional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical nurses with regard to personal and workplace safety, personal and professional relationships and perceptions of their team, organization and community, and to understand lessons learned to inform future responses to pandemics or global emergencies. DESIGN: Qualitative, descriptive free-text surveys, informed by appreciative inquiry. METHODS: Nurses working in adult COVID- and non-COVID cohort medical-surgical and intensive care units, outpatient cancer and general surgery centres were invited to participate. Data were collected between April and October 2021 and analysed using summative content analysis. RESULTS: In total, 77 participants completed free-text surveys. Five themes were identified: (1) Constraints on nursing: barriers in communication and diminished patient safety and quality of care; (2) Navigating uncertainty: the emotional toll of the pandemic; (3) Team solidarity, renewed appreciation and reaffirming purpose in nursing work; (4) Enhanced trust versus feeling expendable; and (5) Increased isolation and polarization within communities. Nurses described a perceived negative impact on a number of their relationships, including with patients, employer and community. They described a huge emotional toll that included feelings of isolation and polarization. While some nurses described feeling supported by their team and employer, others described feeling expendable. CONCLUSION: Nurses' responses provided insights into negative emotional experiences during the pandemic due to heightened uncertainty and fear, and also the importance of support received from peers, colleagues and their employer. Nurses experienced feelings of isolation and polarization within their communities. The varied responses reflect the importance of societal solidarity when faced with global emergencies, and the need for nurses to feel valued by their patients and employer. IMPACT: Effective responses to public health emergencies require individuals and communities to work together to achieve collective goals. Efforts to retain nurses are critical during global emergencies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient and public involvement.

RESPONDER: A qualitative study of ethical issues faced by critical care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: To identify and understand ethical challenges arising during COVID-19 in intensive care and nurses' perceptions of how they made "good" decisions and provided "good" care when faced with ethical challenges and use of moral resilience. BACKGROUND: Little is known about the ethical challenges that nurses faced during the COVID-19 pandemic and ways they responded. DESIGN: Qualitative, descriptive free-text surveys and semi-structured interviews, underpinned by appreciative inquiry. METHODS: Nurses working in intensive care in one academic quaternary care centre and three community hospitals in Midwest United States were invited to participate. In total, 49 participants completed free-text surveys, and seven participants completed interviews. Data were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Five themes captured ethical challenges: implementation of the visitation policy; patients dying alone; surrogate decision-making; diminished safety and quality of care; and imbalance and injustice between professionals. Four themes captured nurses' responses: personal strength and values, problem-solving, teamwork and peer support and resources. CONCLUSIONS: Ethical challenges were not novel but were amplified due to repeated occurrence and duration. Some nurses' demonstrated capacities for moral resilience, but none described drawing on all four capacities. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurse managers would benefit from greater ethics training to support their nursing teams.

Interventions to mitigate moral distress: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress is a pervasive phenomenon that can negatively impact healthcare professionals and has been well studied in nursing populations. Much of the evidence suggests that it is associated with intention to leave high acuity areas and the profession. Despite the increasing amounts of research to explore the causes and effects of moral distress, there is limited research on interventions that mitigate the negative effects of moral distress. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this systematic review were to: (a) identify and examine interventions developed to address moral distress experienced by health care professionals (b) examine the quality of the research methods and (c) report on the efficacy of these interventions. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of interventional studies developed to mitigate moral distress. DATA SOURCE: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies (July 2019- September 2019). Additional bioethics databases and reference lists were also hand-searched. REVIEW METHODS: The first author reviewed all retrieved titles and abstracts with a low tolerance for borderline papers based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and those papers were reviewed and discussed by all authors to determine inclusion. Quality appraisal was conducted on the included studies using narrative synthesis to compare the findings. Data were extracted and compared by all authors and then reviewed by the first author for consistency. RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included for full text review and the following interventions identified: educational interventions of varying length and breadth; facilitated discussions ranging from 30 to 60 minutes; specialist consultation services; an intervention bundle; multidisciplinary rounds; self-reflection and narrative writing. Researchers reported statistically significant reductions in moral distress using pre and post surveys, including one mixed methods program evaluation (n=7). The qualitative program evaluation provided participant quotations to suggest their program was beneficial. There were no statistically significant findings in the other studies (n=8). All studies had limitations in design and methodology presenting significant threats to validity. CONCLUSION: Designing rigorous research studies that measure the impact of interventions aimed at mitigating moral distress continues to be challenging. The primary reason being that moral distress is a subjective ethical phenomenon with a number of different causes and effects. This calls for interventions that are flexible and sensitive to individual's needs. To build an evidence-base, interventions should also be measurable and research methods need to be scientifically rigorous. To achieve rigor and innovation, researchers should clearly justify their methodological choices. Tweetable abstract: Interventions to mitigate moral distress: a systematic review of the literature. Educational interventions offer a promising direction but more research is needed.

Value of, Attitudes Toward, and Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices Based on Use of Self-Study Learning Modules.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if completing educational modules on understanding, reviewing, and synthesizing research literature is associated with higher value of, attitudes toward, and implementation of evidence-based practices. METHOD: Nurses completed valid, reliable questionnaires on the value of, attitudes toward, and implementation of evidence-based practice 6 months after four educational modules were introduced. Multivariable modeling was used to learn associations of education modules and evidence-based practice themes. RESULTS: Of 1,033 participants, 54% completed at least one education module; 22% completed all modules. Value and attitude about evidence-based practice were moderately high, but implementation was low (mean = 15.15 ± 15.72; range = 0 to 72). After controlling for nurse characteristics and experiences associated with evidence-based practice value, attitudes, and implementation scores, education modules completion was associated with the implementation of evidence-based practice (p = .001), but not with value or attitude of evidence-based practices scores. CONCLUSION: Education on reviewing and synthesizing literature strengthened implementation of evidence-based practices. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2017;48(5):209-216.

Validation of Predictors of Fall Events in Hospitalized Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A seven-item cancer-specific fall risk tool (Cleveland Clinic Capone-Albert [CC-CA] Fall Risk Score) was shown to have a strong concordance index for predicting falls; however, validation of the model is needed. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to validate that the CC-CA Fall Risk Score, made up of six factors, predicts falls in patients with cancer and to determine if the CC-CA Fall Risk Score performs better than the Morse Fall Tool. METHODS: Using a prospective, comparative methodology, data were collected from electronic health records of patients hospitalized for cancer care in four hospitals. Risk factors from each tool were recorded, when applicable. Multivariable models were created to predict the probability of a fall. A concordance index for each fall tool was calculated. FINDINGS: The CC-CA Fall Risk Score provided higher discrimination than the Morse Fall Tool in predicting fall events in patients hospitalized for cancer management.

Core aspects of satisfaction with pain management: cancer patients' perspectives.

CONTEXT: The coexistence of high levels of satisfaction and high levels of pain has been perplexing. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to 1) describe patient expectations related to the experience of cancer-related pain, 2) explore the cognitive processes and meaning that underlie patient judgments about satisfaction and dissatisfaction with pain management, and 3) explore the discrepancies between ratings of high satisfaction with pain management with high pain intensity. METHODS: The sample included 33 patients: 18 with advanced cancer and 15 experiencing pain after a surgery for a cancer diagnosis. All patients had experienced "worst pain" of at least moderate intensity and were interviewed using standard pain measures from the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire and open-ended questions about the underlying meaning of their answers. We systematically analyzed the transcribed qualitative data using NVivo software. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of patients were females and were aged 25-78 years. Most (75%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall pain management. Key findings indicate that for some, the worst pain rating was often brief, even momentary. Most patients expected pain relief. Four key themes were important to the quality of pain management: being treated right, having a safety net, being in a partnership with their health care team, and having pain treatment that was efficacious. Key aspects of the patient-provider relationship that mattered were how the nurses and doctors behaved toward them and how quickly they responded to reports of pain. For some, an important factor was whether they had control of the amount of pain they experienced. CONCLUSION: The findings inform measurement of patient satisfaction with the quality of pain management.

Clarifying concerns about doctors' clinical performance: what is the contribution of assessment by the National Clinical Assessment Service?

PURPOSE: The UK National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS) provides local NHS bodies with advice and support in relation to concerns about individual doctors and dentists and in some cases also conducts a detailed assessment of practitioner performance. The purpose of this paper is to identify the contribution of NCAS performance assessment to clarifying concerns about clinical performance through comparison of concerns suspected at initial referral with those identified at assessment. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In the paper a sample of 50 NCAS medical cases, performance issues reported at the point of referral to NCAS and those identified at assessment were grouped into five broad domains (clinical care, behaviour, health, education and training, organisation). Concerns identified at assessment were compared with those reported at referral for each domain of concern. Conclusions and recommendations following assessment were also reviewed. FINDINGS: Within each domain, some concerns noted at referral were confirmed; others were challenged or redefined. In all areas, but particularly in respect of the work environment, new concerns were identified for the first time at assessment. In 20 percent of cases, the concerns identified at referral were not borne out at assessment. In 12 percent of cases the issues revealed at assessment were more serious than anticipated. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Findings indicate that the NCAS assessment process provides a more accurate and comprehensive "diagnosis" of performance issues, enabling more appropriate recommendations for "treatment" and helping to differentiate between potentially remediable and more fundamental problems. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: There is currently little published evidence about the contribution of this type of performance assessment programme to clarifying performance issues.

Factors that influence Spanish- and English-speaking participants' decision to enroll in cancer randomized clinical trials.

Cancer randomized clinical trial (RCT) participation is low, particularly among ethnic and racial minorities. Hispanic enrollment is far below their representation in the US population, yet their cancer burden is higher. Little is known from the patient perspective about factors which influence the decision to enroll in RCTs. We asked Spanish- and English-speaking individuals what factors influence decisions about cancer RCT participation. Eight focus groups were conducted with 55 participants (25 Spanish and 30 English-speaking). The groups were taped, transcribed, and analyzed for themes. Six major themes emerged: patient-provider communication, personal relationship with provider, involvement of significant others in decision making, role of faith, need for information, and impact of discrimination on decision making. Both similarities (e.g. need for comprehensive information) and differences (e.g. need for provider acknowledgement of emotional and spiritual concerns) were found between Spanish- and English-speaking participants. Among Spanish-speaking participants, level of education was differentially related to decision-making themes. Implications for providers are discussed.

Developing primary care review criteria from evidence-based guidelines: coronary heart disease as a model.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service (NHS) initiatives such as Clinical Governance, National Service Frameworks and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines programme create demand for tools to enable performance review by healthcare professionals. Ideally such tools should enable clinical teams to assess quality of care and highlight areas of good practice or where improvement is needed. They should also be able to be used to demonstrate progress towards goals and promote quality, while not unnecessarily increasing demand on limited resources or weakening professional control. AIM: To formulate and evaluate a method for developing, from clinical guidelines, evidence-based review criteria that are proritised, useful and relevant to general practices assessing quality of care for the primary care management of coronary heart disease (CHD). DESIGN OF STUDY: A two-stage study comprising, first, a review of available evidence-based guidelines for CHD and, second, the definition and prioritization of associated review criteria from the most highly rated guidelines. SETTING: Primary healthcare teams in England. METHODS: Using structured methods, evidence-based clinical guidelines for CHD were identified and appraised to ensure their suitability as the basis for developing review criteria. Recommendations common to a number of guidelines were priortszid by a panel of general practitioners to develop review criteria suitable for use in primary care. RESULTS: A standardised method has been developed for constructing evidence-based review criteria from clinical guidelines. A limited, prioritized set of review criteria was developed for the primary care management of CHD. This was distributed around the NHS through the Royal College of General Practitioners for use by primary care teams across the United Kingdom. CONCLUSION: Developing useful, evidence-based review criteria is not a straightforward process, partly because of a lack of consistency and clarity in guidelines currently available. A method was developed which accommodated these limitations and which can be applied to the development and evaluation of review criteria from guidelines for other conditions.