Measuring moral distress in health professionals using the MMD-HP-SPA scale.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress (MD) is the psychological damage caused when people are forced to witness or carry out actions which go against their fundamental moral values. The main objective was to evaluate the prevalence and predictive factors associated with MD among health professionals during the pandemic and to determine its causes. METHODS: A regional, observational and cross-sectional study in a sample of 566 professionals from the Public Health Service of Andalusia (68.7% female; 66.9% physicians) who completed the MMD-HP-SPA scale to determine the level of MD (0-432 points). Five dimensions were used: i) Health care; ii) Therapeutic obstinacy-futility, iii) Interpersonal relations of the Healthcare Team, iv) External pressure; v) Covering up of medical malpractice. RESULTS: The mean level of MD was 127.3 (SD=66.7; 95% CI 121.8-132.8), being higher in female (135 vs. 110.3; p<0.01), in nursing professionals (137.8 vs. 122; p<0.01) and in the community setting (136.2 vs. 118.3; p<0.001), with these variables showing statistical significance in the multiple linear regression model (p<0.001; r2=0.052). With similar results, the multiple logistic regression model showed being female was a higher risk factor (OR=2.27; 95% CI 1.5-3.4; p<0.001). 70% of the sources of MD belonged to the dimension "Health Care" and the cause "Having to attend to more patients than I can safely attend to" obtained the highest average value (Mean=9.8; SD=4.9). CONCLUSIONS: Female, nursing professionals, and those from the community setting presented a higher risk of MD. The healthcare model needs to implement an ethical approach to public health issues to alleviate MD among its professionals.

Study of the Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals (MMD-HP-SPA).

BACKGROUND: The early detection of moral distress requires a validated and reliable instrument. The aim of this study was to carry out an advanced analysis of the psychometric properties of the moral distress scale for health professionals (MMD-HP-SPA) by performing a validation of the construct and its internal and external reliability. METHODS: We performed a multicentre cross-sectional study in health professionals belonging to the Andalusian public health system. Construct validity was performed by exploratory (n = 300) and confirmatory (n = 275) factor analysis (EFA/CFA) in different subgroups; we also analysed the internal consistency and temporal reliability of the scale. RESULTS: 384 doctors and 191 nurses took part in the survey. The overall mean for moral distress was 128.5 (SD = 70.9), 95% CI [122.7-134.3], and it was higher in nurses at 140.5 (SD = 74.9) than in doctors at 122.5 (SD = 68.1), F = 8.37 p < 0.01. The EFA produced a model of five components which accounted for 54.8% of the variance of the model. The CFA achieved a goodness of fit of Chi2 = 972.4; AIC = 1144.3; RMSEA = 0.086; CFI = 0.844; TLI = 0.828; NFI = 0.785. CONCLUSIONS: The MMD-HP-SPA scale has solid construct validity, excellent internal consistency, optimal temporal reliability, and underlying dimensions which effectively explore the causes of moral distress in health professionals, thus guaranteeing its use in hospital and community settings.

Early Tracheostomy for Managing ICU Capacity During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health care systems during viral epidemics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had undergone tracheostomy in 15 Spanish ICUs during the surge, when ICU occupancy modified clinician criteria to perform tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19. We compared ventilator-free days at 28 and 60 days and ICU- and hospital bed-free days at 28 and 60 days in propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent tracheostomy at different timings (≤ 7 days, 8-10 days, and 11-14 days after intubation). RESULTS: Of 1,939 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia, 682 (35.2%) underwent tracheostomy, 382 (56%) within 14 days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with more ventilator-free days at 28 days (≤ 7 days vs > 7 days [116 patients included in the analysis]: median, 9 days [interquartile range (IQR), 0-15 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 0-7 days]; difference between groups, 4.5 days; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7 days; 8-10 days vs > 10 days [222 patients analyzed]: 6 days [IQR, 0-10 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-6 days]; difference, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 1.7-4.5 days; 11-14 days vs > 14 days [318 patients analyzed]: 4 days [IQR, 0-9 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-2 days]; difference, 3 days; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 days). Except hospital bed-free days at 28 days, all other end points were better with early tracheostomy. INTERPRETATION: Optimal timing of tracheostomy may improve patient outcomes and may alleviate ICU capacity strain during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing mortality. Tracheostomy within the first work on a ventilator in particular may improve ICU availability.