Triggers and factors associated with moral distress and moral injury in health and social care workers: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

OBJECTIVE: At some point in their career, many healthcare workers will experience psychological distress associated with being unable to take morally or ethically correct action, as it aligns with their own values; a phenomenon known as moral distress. Similarly, there are increasing reports of healthcare workers experiencing long-term mental and psychological pain, alongside internal dissonance, known as moral injury. This review examined the triggers and factors associated with moral distress and injury in Health and Social Care Workers (HSCW) employed across a range of clinical settings with the aim of understanding how to mitigate the effects of moral distress and identify potential preventative interventions. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and reported according to recommendations from Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Searches were conducted and updated regularly until January 2024 on 2 main databases (CENTRAL, PubMed) and three specialist databases (Scopus, CINAHL, PsycArticles), alongside hand searches of study registration databases and other systematic reviews reference lists. Eligible studies included a HSCW sample, explored moral distress/injury as a main aim, and were written in English or Italian. Verbatim quotes were extracted, and article quality was assessed via the CASP toolkit. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify patterns and arrange codes into themes. Specific factors like culture and diversity were explored, and the effects of exceptional circumstances like the pandemic. RESULTS: Fifty-one reports of 49 studies were included in the review. Causes and triggers were categorised under three domains: individual, social, and organisational. At the individual level, patients' care options, professionals' beliefs, locus of control, task planning, and the ability to make decisions based on experience, were indicated as elements that can cause or trigger moral distress. In addition, and relevant to the CoVID-19 pandemic, was use/access to personal protection resources. The social or relational factors were linked to the responsibility for advocating for and communication with patients and families, and professionals own support network. At organisational levels, hierarchy, regulations, support, workload, culture, and resources (staff and equipment) were identified as elements that can affect professionals' moral comfort. Patients' care, morals/beliefs/standards, advocacy role and culture of context were the most referenced elements. Data on cultural differences and diversity were not sufficient to make assumptions. Lack of resources and rapid policy changes have emerged as key triggers related to the pandemic. This suggests that those responsible for policy decisions should be mindful of the potential impact on staff of sudden and top-down change. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that causes and triggers of moral injury are multifactorial and largely influenced by the context and constraints within which professionals work. Moral distress is linked to the duty and responsibility of care, and professionals' disposition to prioritise the wellbeing of patients. If the organisational values and regulations are in contrast with individuals' beliefs, repercussions on professionals' wellbeing and retention are to be expected. Organisational strategies to mitigate against moral distress, or the longer-term sequalae of moral injury, should address the individual, social, and organisational elements identified in this review.

Applied Methods to Assess the Antimicrobial Activity of Metallic-Based Nanoparticles.

With the rise of antibiotic resistance, the drive to discover novel antimicrobial substances and standard testing methods with the aim of controlling transmissive diseases are substantially high. In healthcare sectors and industries, although methods for testing antibiotics and other aqueous-based reagents are well established, methods for testing nanomaterials, non-polar and other particle-based suspensions are still debatable. Hence, utilities of ISO standard validations of such substances have been recalled where corrective actions had to be taken. This paper reports a serial analysis obtained from testing the antimicrobial activities of 10 metallic-based nanomaterials against 10 different pathogens using five different in vitro assays, where the technique, limitation and robustness of each method were evaluated. To confirm antimicrobial activities of metallic-based nanomaterial suspensions, it was found that at least two methods must be used, one being the agar well diffusion method, which was found to be the most reliable method. The agar well diffusion method provided not only information on antimicrobial efficacy through the size of the inhibitory zones, but it also identified antimicrobial ions and synergistic effects released by the test materials. To ascertain the effective inhibitory concentration of nanoparticles, the resazurin broth dilution method is recommended, as MIC can be determined visually without utilising any equipment. This method also overcomes the limit of detection (LoD) and absorbance interference issues, which are often found in the overexpression of cell debris and nanoparticles or quantum dots with optical profiles. In this study, bimetallic AgCu was found to be the most effective antimicrobial nanoparticle tested against across the bacterial (MIC 7 µg/mL) and fungal (MIC 62.5 µg/mL) species.

Is parenteral phosphate replacement in the intensive care unit safe?

Hypophosphatemia is well recognized in the intensive care setting, associated with refeeding and continuous forms of renal replacement therapy (CCRT). However, it is unclear as to when and how to administer intravenous phosphate supplementation in the general intensive care setting. There have been recent concerns regarding phosphate administration and development of acute kidney injury. We therefore audited our practice of parenteral phosphate administration. We prospectively audited parenteral phosphate administration (20 mmol) in 58 adult patients in a general intensive care unit in a University tertiary referral center. Fifty-eight patients were audited; mean age 57.2 ± 2.0 years, 70.7% male. The median duration of the infusion was 310 min (228-417), and 50% of the patients were on CRRT. 63.8% of patients were hypophosphatemic (<0.87 mmol/L) prior to the phosphate infusion, and serum phosphate increased from 0.79 ± 0.02 to 1.07 ± 0.03 mmol/L, P < 0.001. Two patients became hyperphosphatemic (>1.45 mmol/L). There was no correlation between the change in serum phosphate and the pre-infusion phosphate. Although there were no significant changes in serum urea, creatinine or other electrolytes, arterial ionized calcium fell from 1.15 ± 0.01 to 1.13 ± 0.01 mmol/L, P < 0.01. Although infusion of 20 mmol phosphate did not appear to adversely affect renal function and corrected hypophosphatemia in 67.7% of cases, we found that around 33% of patients who were given parenteral phosphate were not hypophosphatemic, and that the fall in ionized calcium raises the possibility of the formation of calcium-phosphate complexes and potential for soft tissue calcium deposition.