Bruce Courtenay R, Miller Susan M, Zimmerman Janice L
1Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 2Houston Methodist Hospital System, Houston Methodist Hospital System Biomedical Ethics Program, Houston, TX. 3Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY. 4Houston Methodist Research Institute, Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX. 5Critical Care Division, Department of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX.
Crit Care Med. 2015 Apr;43(4):823-31. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000822.
Our study objectives were to determine the key sources of moral distress in diverse critical care professionals and how they manage it in the context of team-based models.
Qualitative case study methodology using three recently resolved clinical cases.
A medical and surgical adult ICU in a 900-bed academic, tertiary Houston hospital.
Twenty-nine ICU team members of diverse professional backgrounds interviewed between March 2013 and July 2013.
None.
All members of the ICU team reported experiencing moral distress. Intrateam discordance served as a key source of distress for all healthcare disciplines. Interviewees identified two situations where intrateam discordance creates moral distress: 1) situations involving initiation or maintenance of nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments and 2) situations involving a lack of full disclosure about interventions. Healthcare professionals engaged in a variety of management techniques, which can be grouped according to maladaptive behaviors (pas-de-deux, "fighting," and withdrawing) and constructive behaviors (venting, mentoring networks, and building team cohesion). Maladaptive behaviors were more common in the surgical ICU. Constructive behaviors were more prevalent in the medical ICU and typically used by nurses and ancillary staff members. Physicians report becoming detached as morally distressing cases unfold, whereas nurses report becoming more emotionally invested.
This study identified the ways in which moral distress manifests across critical care disciplines in different ICU environments. Our results have potential implications for patient care. First, when clinicians alter the content of their goals-of-care conversations with patients or families to accommodate intrateam discordance (as part of the "pas-de-deux"), subsequent decisions regarding medical care may be compromised. Second, when different team members respond differently to the same case-with nurses becoming more emotionally invested and physicians becoming more withdrawn-communication gaps are likely to occur at critical moral distress junctures. Finally, our findings suggest that physicians and any healthcare professionals in surgical units might be susceptible to unmitigated moral distress because they report less engagement in constructive behaviors to recalibrate their distress.
我们的研究目的是确定不同重症监护专业人员道德困扰的关键来源,以及他们在基于团队的模式下如何应对这种困扰。
采用定性案例研究方法,使用三个近期解决的临床案例。
休斯顿一家拥有900张床位的学术性三级医院的内科和外科成人重症监护病房。
2013年3月至2013年7月期间,对29名不同专业背景的重症监护病房团队成员进行了访谈。
无。
重症监护病房团队的所有成员均报告经历过道德困扰。团队内部的不一致是所有医疗保健学科困扰的关键来源。受访者确定了团队内部不一致导致道德困扰的两种情况:1)涉及启动或维持无益处的生命维持治疗的情况,以及2)涉及对干预措施缺乏充分披露的情况。医疗保健专业人员采用了多种管理技巧,这些技巧可根据适应不良行为(双人舞、“争斗 ”和退缩)和建设性行为(发泄、指导网络和建立团队凝聚力)进行分类。适应不良行为在外科重症监护病房更为常见。建设性行为在内科重症监护病房更为普遍,并且通常由护士和辅助工作人员使用。医生报告说,随着道德困扰病例的展开,他们会变得冷漠,而护士则报告说他们会在情感上投入更多。
本研究确定了道德困扰在不同重症监护环境中的不同重症监护学科中的表现方式。我们的研究结果对患者护理具有潜在影响。首先,当临床医生改变他们与患者或家属关于护理目标的谈话内容以适应团队内部的不一致(作为 “双人舞 ”的一部分)时,随后关于医疗护理的决定可能会受到影响。其次,当不同的团队成员对同一病例的反应不同时——护士在情感上投入更多,而医生则变得更加冷漠——在关键的道德困扰时刻可能会出现沟通差距。最后,我们的研究结果表明,外科病房的医生和任何医疗保健专业人员可能容易受到未缓解的道德困扰,因为他们报告说较少参与建设性行为来重新调整他们的困扰。