Burnout in psychosocial oncology clinicians: A systematic review

Resilience at Work among Healthcare Professionals in Oncology during and beyond the Pandemic: Report from A Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Reflexive Symposium

The chronic distress faced by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in oncology was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, heightening the need to improve their resilience. The Entretiens Jacques Cartier symposium provided an opportunity for participants from France and Quebec to share perspectives on resilience at work and discuss interventions at individual and organizational levels to support HCP health and well-being. Fifty-eight stakeholders were invited to the symposium, including HCPs, government decision-makers, researchers, and patient representatives. The symposium began with presentations on the nature of professional resilience at work in oncology and promising interventions developed in France and Quebec. Participants were then engaged in deliberation on how evidence and experiential knowledge could contribute to workplace strategies to strengthen resilience. Small-group reflexive sessions using the photovoice method, and an intersectoral roundtable, elicited the expression and deliberation of multiple perspectives on the nature and building blocks of resilience. Four main themes emerged from the discussions: (1) that resilience remains a muddy concept and can be associated pejoratively with "happycracy"; (2) that resilience must contend with bounded autonomy and captors; (3) that it relies on a sense of coherence at work; and (4) that patients play a role in improving HCP resilience. Stakeholders from healthcare systems in different countries view resilience at work as a means of equipping teams to handle chronic and punctual stresses in cancer care. The symposium emphasized the importance of better defining what resilience at work means and pursuing explorations of multicomponent interventions to support oncology HCPs and the patients they care for. The themes raised by participants at the symposium suggest pathways for furthering this exploration.

Perspectives of registered dietitians and factors associated with their personal accomplishment in the management of cancer cachexia

PURPOSE

Registered dietitians (RDs) have the potential in cancer cachexia management. We investigated RDs' knowledge on cancer cachexia and assessed the effects of factors on RDs' perception of playing an important role in cancer cachexia management.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a survey examining the perspectives of health care professionals on cancer cachexia management. We sent the questionnaire to 451 RDs. RDs were divided into two groups: RDs with and without the perception. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square test. To examine the effects of factors on the perception, estimated crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the logistic regression model were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 237 RDs were analyzed. Significant differences were observed in the number of cancer patients/month, the primary area of practice, the number of clinical guidelines used, the number of items used, the number of symptoms used, and training for cancer cachexia management (p values all < 0.05). After adjustments, the factors of cancer care experience ≥ 20 years (OR 8.32, 95% CI 1.22-56.70; p = 0.030), the number of patients/month ≥ 50 (OR 27.35, 95% CI 3.99-187.24; p = 0.001), using the clinical guidelines (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.29-5.61; p = 0.008), the number of items ≥ 5 (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.47-8.40; p = 0.005), and receiving training (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.77-8.67; p = 0.001) significantly associated with the perception.

CONCLUSION

Specific knowledge and training as well as abundant experience were associated with the perception.

Caring for People We Know: An Unrecognized Risk for Burnout?

Background: As the field of palliative care continues to grow, many clinicians will care for patients with whom they have personal connections. Breaching the boundary between a clinician's personal and professional life is potentially an unrecognized risk for burnout. Objective: We explored the challenges of caring for patients personally known to clinicians and the types of support needed, with a view to developing preliminary practice guidelines. Design: Focus groups. Setting/Subjects: Thirteen psychosocial oncology and palliative care clinicians who care for adult patients participated in one of two focus groups. Six participants were physicians, four were nurse practitioner/registered nurse/physician assistant (NP/RN/PAs), and three were psychosocial clinicians. Measurement: Using NVivo 12, we analyzed focus group transcripts from clinicians about their experiences caring for patients they know personally, the impact of such experiences, and the type of support and guidelines that could benefit clinicians in these unique situations. Results: Navigating boundaries and managing the psychological impact on the clinician, including fear of negative evaluation, increased anxiety and emotional exhaustion were the most challenging aspects of providing such care. Suggested guidelines include an early team meeting, a buddy system, a conversation guide to address the dual relationship, and embedded psychological support and mentorship. Conclusions: Feedback from clinicians identified preliminary guidelines that incorporate tools palliative care teams can use to improve support for clinicians caring for patients with whom they have a personal connection. These tools address the psychosocial aspects of care and have the potential to help clinicians feel a greater sense of control in these often, challenging and emotionally taxing situations.

Systematic scoping review on moral distress among physicians

BACKGROUND

Concepts of moral distress (MD) among physicians have evolved and extend beyond the notion of psychological distress caused by being in a situation in which one is constrained from acting on what one knows to be right. With many accounts involving complex personal, professional, legal, ethical and moral issues, we propose a review of current understanding of MD among physicians.

METHODS

A systematic evidence-based approach guided systematic scoping review is proposed to map the current concepts of MD among physicians published in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, SCOPUS, ERIC and Google Scholar databases. Concurrent and independent thematic and direct content analysis (split approach) was conducted on included articles to enhance the reliability and transparency of the process. The themes and categories identified were combined using the jigsaw perspective to create domains that form the framework of the discussion that follows.

RESULTS

A total of 30 156 abstracts were identified, 2473 full-text articles were reviewed and 128 articles were included. The five domains identified were as follows: (1) current concepts, (2) risk factors, (3) impact, (4) tools and (5) interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial reviews suggest that MD involves conflicts within a physician's personal beliefs, values and principles (personal constructs) caused by personal, ethical, moral, contextual, professional and sociocultural factors. How these experiences are processed and reflected on and then integrated into the physician's personal constructs impacts their self-concepts of personhood and identity and can result in MD. The ring theory of personhood facilitates an appreciation of how new experiences create dissonance and resonance within personal constructs. These insights allow the forwarding of a new broader concept of MD and a personalised approach to assessing and treating MD. While further studies are required to test these findings, they offer a personalised means of supporting a physician's MD and preventing burn-out.

Oncology Healthcare Professionals’ Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The paper begins by reviewing the literature on oncology healthcare professionals’ (HCP) mental health. We summarize and present the current data on HCP mental health in order to understand the baseline state of oncology HCPs’ mental health status prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. At each juncture, we will discuss the implications of these mental health variables on the personal lives of HCPs, the healthcare system, and patient care. We follow by reviewing the literature on these parameters during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on the overall mental health of HCPs working in oncology. By reviewing and summarizing the data before and after the start of the pandemic, we will get a fuller picture of the pre-existing stressors facing oncology HCPs and the added burden caused by pandemic-related stresses. The second part of this review paper will discuss the implications for the oncology workforce and offer recommendations based on the research literature in order to improve the lives of HCPs, and in the process, improve patient care.

Moral Distress: A Qualitative Study of Experiences Among Oncology Team Members

BACKGROUND

Oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs), particularly nurses, experience moral distress. However, little is known about the impact of moral distress on oncology teams.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to describe moral distress as it is experienced by oncology teams in practice.

METHODS

32 oncology team members participated in eight focus groups. Content analysis was used to identify key themes. Two investigators collaboratively analyzed the data, and findings were independently reviewed by two additional investigators.

FINDINGS

The following six themes emerged.