The mediating roles of workplace support and ethical work environment in associations between leadership and moral distress: a longitudinal study of Canadian health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in heightened moral distress among health care workers (HCWs) worldwide. Past research has shown that effective leadership may mitigate potential for the development of moral distress. However, no research to date has considered the mechanisms by which leadership might have an influence on moral distress. We sought to evaluate longitudinally whether Canadian HCWs' perceptions of workplace support and ethical work environment would mediate associations between leadership and moral distress. Methods: A total of 239 French- and English-speaking Canadian HCWs employed during the COVID-19 pandemic were recruited to participate in a longitudinal online survey. Participants completed measures of organizational and supervisory leadership at baseline and follow-up assessments of workplace support, perceptions of an ethical work environment, and moral distress. Results: Associations between both organizational and supervisory leadership and moral distress were fully mediated by workplace supports and perceptions of an ethical work environment. Discussion: To ensure HCW well-being and quality of care, it is important to ensure that HCWs are provided with adequate workplace supports, including manageable work hours, social support, and recognition for efforts, as well as an ethical workplace environment.

Outsourcing practice-based education: The role of industry representatives and implications for clinical expertise.

In an era of significant human and fiscal constraints, hospitals increasingly rely on industry representatives to fill gaps related to practice-based education. Given their dual sales and support functions, the extent to which education and support functions are, or ought to be, fulfilled by industry representatives is unclear. We conducted an interpretive qualitative study at a large, academic medical centre in Ontario, Canada, during 2021-2022, interviewing 36 participants across the organization with direct and varied experiences with industry-delivered education. We found that ongoing fiscal and human resource challenges prompted hospital leaders to outsource practice-based education to industry representatives, which created an expanded role for industry beyond initial product rollouts. Outsourcing, however, generated downstream costs to the organization and undermined the goals of practice-based education. To attract and retain clinicians, participants advocated for re-investment in practice-based education in-house, with a limited and supervised role for industry representatives.

Clinical ethics consultations: a scoping review of reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical ethics consultations (CEC) can be complex interventions, involving multiple methods, stakeholders, and competing ethical values. Despite longstanding calls for rigorous evaluation in the field, progress has been limited. The Medical Research Council (MRC) proposed guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of complex interventions. The evaluation of CEC may benefit from application of the MRC framework to advance the transparency and methodological rigor of this field. A first step is to understand the outcomes measured in evaluations of CEC in healthcare settings. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review was to identify and map the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC. The secondary objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of CEC structures, processes, and roles to enhance understanding and to inform standardization. METHODS: We searched electronic databases to identify primary studies of CEC involving patients, substitute decision-makers and/or family members, clinicians, healthcare staff and leaders. Outcomes were mapped across five conceptual domains as identified a priori based on our clinical ethics experience and preliminary literature searches and revised based on our emerging interpretation of the data. These domains included personal factors, process factors, clinical factors, quality, and resource factors. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies were included in the review. Studies were highly heterogeneous and varied considerably regarding format and process of ethical intervention, credentials of interventionist, population of study, outcomes reported, and measures employed. In addition, few studies used validated measurement tools. The top three outcome domains that studies reported on were quality (n = 31), process factors (n = 23), and clinical factors (n = 19). The majority of studies examined multiple outcome domains. All five outcome domains were multidimensional and included a variety of subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review represents the initial phase of mapping the outcomes reported in primary studies of CEC and identifying gaps in the evidence. The confirmed lack of standardization represents a hindrance to the provision of high quality intervention and CEC scientific progress. Insights gained can inform the development of a core outcome set to standardize outcome measures in CEC evaluation research and enable scientifically rigorous efficacy trials of CEC.

Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. PARTICIPANTS: Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables. RESULTS: 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.

Optimizing clinical research procedures in public health emergencies.

Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, have a devastating impact on an individual and societal level, and there is an urgent need to learn, understand and bridge the therapeutic gap at a time of extreme stress on the patient, health care systems and staff. Well-designed, controlled clinical trials play a crucial role in the discovery of novel diagnostic and management strategies; however, these catastrophic circumstances pose unique challenges in initiating research studies at institutional, national, and international levels, highlighting the importance of a coordinated, collaborative approach. This review discusses key elements necessary to consider for developing clinical trials within a Public Health Emergency setting.