'Telling them "that's what it says in the guidance" didn't feel good enough': moral distress during the pandemic in UK public health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to identify the causes of moral distress in public health professionals associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the potential ways of avoiding or mitigating the distress. METHODS: The survey was distributed to all members of the UK Faculty of Public Health between 14 December 2021 and 23 February 2022. Conventional qualitative content analysis was conducted to explore the situations in which moral distress arises, the moral judgments that led to distress and the proposed ways to address moral distress. RESULTS: A total of 629 responses were received from respondents broadly representative of the public health professional workforce. The main situations causing moral distress were national policy, guidance and law; public health advice; and workplace environments. Moral distress was precipitated by judgments about having caused injury, being unable to do good, dishonest communications and unjust prioritization. The need to improve guidance, communication and preparedness was recognized, though there was disagreement over how to achieve this. There were consistent calls for more subsidiarity, moral development and support and freedom to voice concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The causes of moral distress in public health are distinct from other healthcare professions. Important proposals for addressing moral distress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have been voiced by public health professionals themselves.

Moral distress and injury in the public health professional workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern about moral distress and injury associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in healthcare professions. This study aimed to quantify the nature, frequency, severity and duration of the problem in the public health professional workforce. METHODS: Between 14 December 2021 and 23 February 2022, Faculty of Public Health (FPH) members were surveyed about their experiences of moral distress before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: In total, 629 FPH members responded, of which, 405 (64%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 61-68%) reported one or more experience of moral distress associated with their own action (or inaction), and 163 (26%; 95%CI = 23-29%) reported experiencing moral distress associated with a colleague's or organization's action (or inaction) since the start of the pandemic. The majority reported moral distress being more frequent during the pandemic and that the effects endured for over a week. In total, 56 respondents (9% of total sample, 14% of those with moral distress), reported moral injury severe enough to require time off work and/or therapeutic help. CONCLUSIONS: Moral distress and injury are significant problems in the UK public health professional workforce, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. There is urgent need to understand the causes and potential options for its prevention, amelioration and care.

Education, training, and experience in public health ethics and law within the UK public health workforce.

BACKGROUND: Public health ethics and law (PHEL) is a core professional competency for the public health workforce. However, few data are available describing the extent to which UK public health workforce members experience ethical and legal issues or have sufficient educational and/or training background to adequately deal with such issues. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was developed for dissemination via member mailing lists of the: Faculty of Public Health, Royal Society of Public Health, and UK Public Health Register. Public Health England also included a link to the survey in their newsletter. The survey included questions about education, training, and experience in relation to PHEL. The survey was deployed from October 2017 to January 2018. RESULTS: The survey was completed by a diverse sample of five hundred and sixty-two individuals. The majority of respondents reported: (i) regularly encountering ethical issues, (ii) resolving ethical issues through personal reflection, (iii) having little or no education and training in PHEL, and (iv) questioning whether they have dealt with ethical issues encountered in practice in the best way. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there is a need to develop and support wider PHEL capacity within the UK public health workforce through the provision of PHEL education, training, guidance, and mentoring.

Ethics, health policy-making and the economic crisis: a qualitative interview study with European policy-makers.

BACKGROUND: The economic crisis posed various challenges to policy-makers who had to decide on which health policy measures to focus on and on which to refrain from. The aim of this research was to assess the relevance of ethics and to highlight ethical dimensions in decision-taking by policy-makers with regard to policy and priority-setting in health systems posed by the economic crisis. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eight European policy-makers from six countries. RESULTS: All interviewees recalled difficult and strenuous situations where they had to prioritise between distinct areas to focus on and invest in, for example around choices between prioritising medications, health professional staffing, care specific equipment, or urgent infrastructure issues. Values could be identified which they deemed as important within the policy-making process, such as trust and responsibility. They explicitly expressed the need for ethical tools and assistance in terms of policy advice for reaching morally sustainable decisions in health policy matters. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that ethical concepts and values frequently come into play in health policy-making, and that ethics is highly relevant in policy-makers' daily decision-taking, yet that they lack ethical guidance on what to base their decisions. The study is of relevance since it can provide future decisions on austerity-related issues with an ethical underpinning and could identify areas of moral concern.

Impact of nursing home deaths on life expectancy calculations in small areas.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The drive to tackle health inequalities at the local level has increased interest in mortality data for small populations. There is some concern that nursing homes may affect measures of mortality for small populations, but there has been little in depth analysis of this. DESIGN AND SETTING: Deaths between 1997 and 2001 and population figures from the GP register (Exeter) database and census 2001 were used to produce life expectancy (LE) figures for all electoral wards in West Sussex. The proportion of those dying within each ward that had been residents of nursing homes was calculated and the relation between these variables and deprivation investigated. RESULTS: There was a significant linear relation between nursing home deaths and LE (p<0.0001), which explained 36% of variation in LE between wards. Deprivation accounted for around 35% of the variation in LE (p<0.0001) but was not correlated with nursing home deaths (p> or =0.0982). Multiple linear regression shows that over 60% of the variation in LE at ward level can be explained by both nursing home deaths and deprivation (p<0.0001) and that the two variables explain similar proportions of this variation. The relation between LE and nursing home deaths within wards grouped by deprivation suggests that the impact of nursing homes is strongest in deprived wards. CONCLUSIONS: This finding has important implications for LE calculations in small populations. Further investigation is now needed to examine the impact of nursing homes in other areas, on other mortality measures, and in larger populations.