Moral distress is a relevant occupational health issue in hospital settings, particularly in high-complexity environments such as surgical units, where organizational constraints, ethical dilemmas, and interprofessional dynamics shape professionals’ experiences. Comparative evidence is needed to understand how moral distress manifests across professional groups working within the same clinical context. This cross-sectional comparative study examined moral distress among physicians and nursing staff working in surgical settings at a public university hospital in southern Brazil. Data were collected from 245 healthcare professionals (167 physicians and 78 nursing staff) using the Brazilian Moral Distress Scale – Short Version (EDME-BR-VR). Group differences in moral distress dimensions were assessed using descriptive statistics and Mann–Whitney U tests. Comparative structural analyses were conducted using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), with separate models estimated for each professional group to examine similarities and differences in structural relationships. Significant differences between physicians and nursing staff were observed in selected moral distress dimensions, particularly Safe and Qualified Care, Defense of Values and Rights, and Working Conditions. Across both groups, Recognition, Power, and Professional Identity emerged as a central antecedent of moral distress, showing significant associations with teamwork, working conditions, safe and qualified care, and ethical violations. Comparative PLS-SEM results indicated similar overall relational patterns across groups, with differences in the magnitude of specific structural paths reflecting profession-specific dynamics. Moral distress among physicians and nursing staff in surgical settings is shaped by shared organizational factors as well as profession-specific ethical pressures. Comparative analysis highlights the central role of professional recognition and identity while underscoring the need for differentiated organizational strategies to address moral distress across professional groups. These findings provide actionable insights for healthcare managers seeking to promote ethical practice, psychological safety, and sustainable work environments in surgical care.
Carvalho et al. (Sat,) studied this question.