Moral distress to moral success: Strategies to decrease moral distress.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress, which is especially high in critical care nurses, has significant negative implications for nurses, patients, organizations, and healthcare as a whole. AIM: A moral distress workshop and follow-up activities were implemented in an intensive care unit in order to decrease levels of moral distress and increase nurses' perceived comfort and confidence in ethical decision-making. DESIGN: A quality improvement (QI) initiative was conducted using a pre- and post-intervention design. The program consisted of a four-hour interactive workshop, followed by two individual self-reflection activities at 2-3 weeks and 5-6 weeks after the workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Critical care nurses working in a heart and vascular intensive care unit at a large academic medical center. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was deemed to be a QI project by the institution's Institutional Review Board. Participation was voluntary. FINDINGS: Nurses experienced a significant decrease in moral distress. The participants' average ethical confidence increased in four areas (ability to identify the conflicting values at stake, knowing role expectations, feeling prepared to resolved ethical conflict, and being able to do the right thing), with knowledge of role expectations and feeling prepared to resolve ethical conflict yielding statistically significant increases. Qualitative findings resulted in consistent themes related to causes of moral distress and ways nurses approached addressing moral distress. DISCUSSION: This study reinforces previous evidence on moral distress and its causes in critical care nurses, and provides a mechanism for improving moral distress and ethical confidence. CONCLUSIONS: This QI study demonstrates the effectiveness of an evidence-based program for decreasing critical care nurses' moral distress and increasing their ethical confidence. The strategies described in this paper can replicated by nursing leaders who wish to effect change at their local level, or adapted and expanded to other professions and clinical care units.

Multidisciplinary Difficult Airway Team Characteristics, Airway Securement Success, and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether implementation of a multidisciplinary airway team was associated with improvement in (1) rate of successful airway securement at first attempt; (2) time to secure airway; and (3) overall complication rate in patients with a difficult airway, as compared with usual care. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review of literature on inpatient multidisciplinary team management of difficult airways, including all studies performed in inpatient settings, excluding studies of ventilator weaning, flight/military medicine, EXIT procedures, and simulation or educational studies. DistillerSR was used for article screening and risk of a bias assessment to evaluate article quality. Data was extracted on study design, airway team composition, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes including airway securement, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: From 5323 studies screened, 19 studies met inclusion criteria with 4675 patients. Study designs included 12 quality improvement projects, 6 cohort studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Four studies evaluated effect of multidisciplinary difficult airway teams on airway securement; all reported higher first attempt success rate with team approach. Three studies reported time to secure the difficult airways, all reporting swifter airway securement with team approach. The most common difficult airway complications were hypoxia, esophageal intubation, hemodynamic instability, and aspiration. Team composition varied, including otolaryngologists, anesthesiologists, intensivists, nurses, and respiratory care practitioners. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary difficult airway teams are associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to unstructured emergency airway management; however, studies have significant heterogeneity in team composition, algorithms for airway securement, and outcomes reported. Further evidence is necessary to define the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and best practices relating to implementing difficult airway teams in inpatient settings.