Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:43:22.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

COVID-19 pandemic moral injury in healthcare professionals: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Verity Williams*
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, Kent and Medway Medical School
Rhian Bradley
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, Kent and Medway Medical School
Rafey Faruqui
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, Kent and Medway Medical School
Julia Hynes
Affiliation:
Kent and Medway Medical School
Julie Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Kent
*
*corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Moral injury (MI) refers to psychological distress resulting from witnessing or participating in events which violate an individual's moral code. Originating from military experiences, the phenomenon also has relevance for healthcare professionals dealing with wars, natural disasters and infectious diseases. The deontological basis of medicine prioritises duty to the individual patient over duty to wider society. These values may place healthcare professionals at increased risk of moral injury, particularly in crisis contexts where they may be party to decisions to withdraw or divert care based on resource availability.

We conducted a systematic review of medical literature to understand the extent and clinical and socio-demographic correlates of moral injury during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

We conducted a systematic review of reports included in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE and HMIC databases using search terms: “moral injury” AND “covid” OR “coronavirus” OR “pandemic”. We also searched Google Scholar and Ovid Database and conducted reference searching. We searched for published quantitative primary research as well as advance online publications and pre-print research. Findings are reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA). Two authors independently assessed the included studies’ methodological quality using a seven-item checklist.

Result

Our databases search identified 498 records and other sources identified 4 records. We screened 391 records after removing duplicates. 4 reports met our protocol requirements.

Three papers used cross-sectional designs. One reported longitudinal outcomes of their sample already described in one of the three papers. Only one study used a MI scoring system validated for healthcare professionals. Others used scoring validated in military populations. These papers reported outcomes from 3334 subjects, with a higher proportion of females. The largest study (3006 subjects) reported MI in 41.3% of their sample. Overall, factors associated with greater MI included: providing direct care to COVID-19 patients; sleep troubles; being unmarried; aged <30 years; female gender; and Buddhist/Taoist faith. Nurses reported a greater severity of MI than physicians. MI significantly correlated with anxiety, depression and burnout. The longitudinal study reported that more stressful and less supportive work environments predicted greater MI at 3 months follow-up.

The average quality assessment score of these studies was 4/7.

Conclusion

It is important that we are able to address moral injury awareness training as part of workforce preparedness and burnout prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic and other disaster responses across the globe.

Type
Rapid-Fire Poster Presentations
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.