What is “moral distress” in nursing? How, can and should we respond to it?

Interest in moral distress (MD) as a research topic has soared in recent years. What is it about this concept that makes it so intriguing? Why does it create such debate amongst healthcare professionals? Why has there been so much conceptual confusion regarding the concept? And why do nurses, in particular, seem to feel this concept so accurately captures their experiences? These are some of the questions that I have been thinking about over the course of my doctoral studies and I would like to consider here. As it was originally conceived, MD was believed to arise “when one knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it nearly impossible to pursue the right course of action” (Jameton, 1984, p. 6). On this understanding, all that is required for MD to occur is a moral judgement and the presence of an external constraint which prevents that judgement from being carried out. This notion that nurses are constrained by external forces and are “not free to be moral” (Yarling hinted at in Tigard (2017) and Howe (2017)). MD may be a natural consequence of the messiness of moral life but when one experiences MD everyday due to their occupation, which seems to be the case for nurses and other healthcare professionals, then it may instead be regarded as an occupational hazard that employers have a responsibility to address. Marshall and Epstein (2016) argue that MD is inherently linked to the notion of “moral hazard” because of the power differentials between those making the decisions and those that must live with those decisions. Moral hazard is a term used to describe situations in which one party controls decisions about resources but another party bears the burden of those decisions (Brunnquell Hamric, Borchers, Silén, Svantesson, Kjellström, Sidenvall, Whitehead, Herbertson, Hamric, Epstein, Rushton, Batcheller, Schroeder, & Donohue, 2015). Even if we perceive MD to be a natural response to morally challenging events, the negative consequences that MD appears to have upon the nursing profession (perpetuating the nursing shortage as increasing numbers of nurses leave the profession, psychological distress and distancing oneself from patients) suggest we should consider ways to respond to it. MD seems to consist of two fundamental aspects: psychological distress and a moral event. We might, therefore, need different interventions to tackle each of these aspects. There are several mechanisms in place that can be further utilized and integrated into everyday clinical practice that may help address psychological distress, for example regular team debriefing sessions after patients' deaths or clinical incidents, and addressing the stigma around using staff support services such as employee assistance programmes that are available at most NHS Trusts. In a recent longitudinal study, Maben et al. (2018) explored the effectiveness of Schwartz Rounds® which offer a safe space for staff to come together and reflect upon the experiences and challenges they face at work. They found that attending Schwartz Rounds® resulted in a statistically significant improvement in staff psychological well-being, increased empathy and compassion for patients and colleagues, and positive changes in practice (Maben et al., 2018). For other possible responses to MD, we can look to North America, where much of the initial MD research has been conducted and initial interventions tested. For example, Cynda Rushton, Professor of Clinical Ethics, Johns Hopkins University, has developed a Mindful Ethical Practice and Resilience Academy (MEPRA) based upon her work exploring moral resilience as a possible response to MD (Rushton, Caldwell, & Kurtz, 2016). Elsewhere in the USA, Helft, Bledsoe,Hancock, and Wocial (2009) have explored facilitated ethics conversations as a response to MD and Hamric & Epstein (2017) have launched a systemwide MD consultation service. In the UK, Traynor (2017) has explored the concept of “critical resilience” not as a specific response to MD but rather as a way for nurses to look more critically at their environments. Traynor (2017) argues that by examining and revealing the power structures in which we work, nurses can come together in solidarity and resist the external forces that Morley and Jackson (2017) suggest are destroying the art of nursing. Importantly, there is much more work to do regarding ways to support clinical staff regarding ways to support clinical staff facing not only the increasing external pressures but the complex everyday clinical ethical issues, and this is the future of my own work. However, it is important that we try to transform the nursing narrative, away from the metanarrative of powerless, suffering victims (Paley, 2004), and embrace a new narrative for nursing. In a recent study reported in Peden-McAlpine, Liaschenko, Traudt, and Gilmore-Szott (2015) and Traudt, Liaschenko, and Peden-McAlpine (2016), 19 experienced critical care nurses were interviewed who self-identified as skilled and comfortable during end-of-life care, MD did not arise as a theme. This was surprising considering that many studies have found that end-of-life care and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments provides the kind of moral events that often lead to experiences of MD. Instead of discussing their experiences of MD, the nurses in Traudt et al. (2016), who had an average of 17 years critical care experience, reported feeling a strong sense of moral agency, felt accountable for their actions, possessed “moral imagination” (meaning they could empathise and appreciate the values of others) and perceived a “moral community” in which they viewed themselves as an integral part of the decision-making process. The authors highlighted how the nurses in this study seemed to feel able to navigate ethically difficult scenarios. Commenting on this study, Rushton and Carse (2016) applaud the changing MD narrative, away from the powerlessness nurse to one in which the nurse is able to thrive within a moral community, bolstered by ethical competency, likely authority and able to enact their moral agency. Whilst we continue to implement, measure and assess the effectiveness of interventions that might mitigate the negative consequences of MD, I call on nurses to continue the fight against this continued narrative of powerlessness and instead embrace the power they do have to engage in moral reflection and debate. If you are interested in further information about MD and possible ways to respond to it, Morley, Bradbury-Jones, Maben, Traynor, Rushton and Jackson will be presenting their work at a public event held at the Wellcome Collection on 21 June. For more information, see https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/what-is-moral-distress-in-nursing-how-can-and-should-we-respond-to-it-tickets-42197149811. No conflict of interest. This work forms part of Morley's doctoral work which is funded by a Society and Ethics Research Fellowship for Healthcare Professionals from the Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref: 108640/Z/15/Z). The project is supervised by Dr Jonathan Ives (University of Bristol), Dr Caroline Bradbury-Jones (University of Birmingham) and Professor Richard Huxtable (University of Bristol).