Framing the Issues: Moral Distress in Health Care

Moral distress in health care has been identified as a growing concern and a focus of research in nursing and health care for almost three decades. Researchers and theorists have argued that moral distress has both short and long-term consequences. Moral distress has implications for satisfaction, recruitment and retention of health care providers and implications for the delivery of safe and competent quality patient care. In over a decade of research on ethical practice, registered nurses and other health care practitioners have repeatedly identified moral distress as a concern and called for action. However, research and action on moral distress has been constrained by lack of conceptual clarity and theoretical confusion as to the meaning and underpinnings of moral distress. To further examine these issues and foster action on moral distress, three members of the University of Victoria/University of British Columbia (UVIC/UVIC) nursing ethics research team initiated the development and delivery of a multi-faceted and interdisciplinary symposium on Moral Distress with international experts, researchers, and practitioners. The goal of the symposium was to develop an agenda for action on moral distress in health care. We sought to develop a plan of action that would encompass recommendations for education, practice, research and policy. The papers in this special issue of HEC Forum arose from that symposium. In this first paper, we provide an introduction to moral distress; make explicit some of the challenges associated with theoretical and conceptual constructions of moral distress; and discuss the barriers to the development of research, education, and policy that could, if addressed, foster action on moral distress in health care practice. The following three papers were written by key international experts on moral distress, who explore in-depth the issues in three arenas: education, practice, research. In the fifth and last paper in the series, we highlight key insights from the symposium and the papers in the series, propose to redefine moral distress, and outline directions for an agenda for action on moral distress in health care

Re-assessing the validity of the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire (MSQ):Two new scales for moral deliberation and paternalism

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The current study and previous research have called the six-component model of Lützen's 30-item Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire (MSQ) into question. For this reason, we re-examined the construct validity of this instrument. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, which was based on a convenience sample of Dutch nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), we tested the validity of MSQ items using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA, respectively). RESULTS: The EFA revealed a two-component model, which was then tested as a target model with CFA and was found to have good model fit. Some items were correlated with two uncorrelated latent constructs, which we labelled as "paternalistic" and "deliberate" attitudes towards patients. CONCLUSIONS: As in previous studies, the analyses in the current study, which was conducted among PAs and NPs, did not reveal six dimensions for the 30 items. Two new latent dimensions of moral sensitivity were psychometrically tested and confirmed. These two components relate to studies investigating ethical behaviour, and they can be used to describe the moral climate in healthcare organizations. The scales are indicators of the extent to which health professionals behave in a deliberate (sensitive) or paternalistic (insensitive) manner towards the opinions of patients within the context of medical decision-making

Understanding psychiatric institutionalization: a conceptual review

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited