There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Moral injury emerged in the healthcare discussion quite recently because of the difficulties
and challenges healthcare workers and healthcare systems face in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Moral injury involves a deep emotional wound and is unique to those
who bear witness to intense human suffering and cruelty. This article aims to synthesise
the very limited evidence from empirical studies on moral injury and to discuss a
better understanding of the concept of moral injury, its importance in the healthcare
context and its relation to the well-known concept of moral distress. A scoping literature
review design was used to support the discussion. Systematic literature searches conducted
in April 2020 in two electronic databases, PubMed/Medline and PsychInfo, produced
2044 hits but only a handful of empirical papers, from which seven well-focused articles
were identified. The concept of moral injury was considered under other concepts as
well such as stress of conscience, regrets for ethical situation, moral distress and
ethical suffering, guilt without fault, and existential suffering with inflicting
pain. Nurses had witnessed these difficult ethical situations when faced with unnecessary
patient suffering and a feeling of not doing enough. Some cases of moral distress
may turn into moral residue and end in moral injury with time, and in certain circumstances
and contexts. The association between these concepts needs further investigation and
confirmation through empirical studies; in particular, where to draw the line as to
when moral distress turns into moral injury, leading to severe consequences. Given
the very limited research on moral injury, discussion of moral injury in the context
of the duty to care, for example, in this pandemic settings and similar situations
warrants some consideration.
Key Points Question What factors are associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers in China who are treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in multiple regions of China, a considerable proportion of health care workers reported experiencing symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress, especially women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers directly engaged in diagnosing, treating, or providing nursing care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Meaning These findings suggest that, among Chinese health care workers exposed to COVID-19, women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care workers have a high risk of developing unfavorable mental health outcomes and may need psychological support or interventions.
In December, 2019, an outbreak of a novel coronavirus pneumonia occurred in Wuhan (Hubei, China), and subsequently attracted worldwide attention. 1 By Feb 9, 2020, there were 37 294 confirmed and 28 942 suspected cases of 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in China. 2 Facing this large-scale infectious public health event, medical staff are under both physical and psychological pressure. 3 To better fight the COVID-19 outbreak, as the largest top-class tertiary hospital in Hunan Province, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University undertakes a considerable part of the investigation of suspected patients. The hospital has set up a 24-h fever clinic, two mild suspected infection patient screening wards, and one severe suspected infection patient screening ward. In addition to the original medical staff at the infectious disease department, volunteer medical staff have been recruited from multiple other departments. The Second Xiangya Hospital—workplace of the chairman of the Psychological Rescue Branch of the Chinese Medical Rescue Association—and the Institute of Mental Health, the Medical Psychology Research Center of the Second Xiangya Hospital, and the Chinese Medical and Psychological Disease Clinical Medicine Research Center responded rapidly to the psychological pressures on staff. A detailed psychological intervention plan was developed, which mainly covered the following three areas: building a psychological intervention medical team, which provided online courses to guide medical staff to deal with common psychological problems; a psychological assistance hotline team, which provided guidance and supervision to solve psychological problems; and psychological interventions, which provided various group activities to release stress. However, the implementation of psychological intervention services encountered obstacles, as medical staff were reluctant to participate in the group or individual psychology interventions provided to them. Moreover, individual nurses showed excitability, irritability, unwillingness to rest, and signs of psychological distress, but refused any psychological help and stated that they did not have any problems. In a 30-min interview survey with 13 medical staff at The Second Xiangya Hospital, several reasons were discovered for this refusal of help. First, getting infected was not an immediate worry to staff—they did not worry about this once they began work. Second, they did not want their families to worry about them and were afraid of bringing the virus to their home. Third, staff did not know how to deal with patients when they were unwilling to be quarantined at the hospital or did not cooperate with medical measures because of panic or a lack of knowledge about the disease. Additionally, staff worried about the shortage of protective equipment and feelings of incapability when faced with critically ill patients. Many staff mentioned that they did not need a psychologist, but needed more rest without interruption and enough protective supplies. Finally, they suggested training on psychological skills to deal with patients' anxiety, panic, and other emotional problems and, if possible, for mental health staff to be on hand to directly help these patients. Accordingly, the measures of psychological intervention were adjusted. First, the hospital provided a place for rest where staff could temporarily isolate themselves from their family. The hospital also guaranteed food and daily living supplies, and helped staff to video record their routines in the hospital to share with their families and alleviate family members' concerns. Second, in addition to disease knowledge and protective measures, pre-job training was arranged to address identification of and responses to psychological problems in patients with COVID-19, and hospital security staff were available to be sent to help deal with uncooperative patients. Third, the hospital developed detailed rules on the use and management of protective equipment to reduce worry. Fourth, leisure activities and training on how to relax were properly arranged to help staff reduce stress. Finally, psychological counsellors regularly visited the rest area to listen to difficulties or stories encountered by staff at work, and provide support accordingly. More than 100 frontline medical staff can rest in the provided rest place, and most of them report feeling at home in this accomodation. Maintaining staff mental health is essential to better control infectious diseases, although the best approach to this during the epidemic season remains unclear.4, 5 The learning from these psychological interventions is expected to help the Chinese government and other parts of the world to better respond to future unexpected infectious disease outbreaks.
Publisher:
SAGE Publications
(Sage UK: London, England
)
ISSN
(Print):
0969-7330
ISSN
(Electronic):
1477-0989
Publication date
(Electronic):
11
January
2021
Publication date
(Print):
August
2021
Volume: 28
Issue: 5
Pages: 590-602
Affiliations
[1-0969733020966776]Ringgold 324714, universityCatholic University of Croatia; , Croatia; University of Hull, UK
[2-0969733020966776]Ringgold 8058, universityUniversity of Turku; , Finland
[3-0969733020966776]Ringgold 8799, universityNational University of Ireland Galway; , Ireland
[4-0969733020966776]Ringgold 8058, universityUniversity of Turku; , Finland
Author notes
[*]Anto Čartolovni, Digital Healthcare Ethics Laboratory (Digit-HeaL), Catholic University
of Croatia, Ilica 242, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia. Email:
anto.cartolovni@
123456unicath.hr
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
4.0 License (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE
and Open Access pages (
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
History
Funding
Funded by:
Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100004488;
Award ID: UIP-2019-04-3212
Funded by:
European Cooperation in Science and Technology, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000921;
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.