Moral Distress Entangled: Patients and Providers in the COVID-19 Era

Moral distress is defined as the inability to act according to one’s own core values. During the COVID-19 pandemic, moral distress in medical personnel has gained attention, related to the impact of pandemic-associated factors, such as the uncertainty of treatment options for the virus and the accelerated pace of deaths. Measures to provide aid and mitigate the long-term pandemic effect on providers are starting to be designed. Yet, little has been said about the moral distress experienced by patients and the relational and additive effect on provider moral distress. Pandemic-associated factors affecting moral distress in patients include the constraining effects of isolation on spiritual and religious traditions as well as the intentional separation of patients from their families. This paper will explore the idea that patients are suffering their own moral distress and further how this impacts the intensity of moral distress experienced by the providers—nurses and physicians. The paucity of research in this area with the implications on patient’s distress, decision making, and distress experienced by providers compels further investigation and analysis.

Assessing patient risk from cancer and COVID-19: Managing patient distress

The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) beginning in Spring 2020 necessitated significant changes to day-to-day interactions in society, as well as to the practice of medicine. Particularly in patients with cancer, these changes can exacerbate the pre-existing psychological stress associated with cancer diagnosis and treatment. We performed a narrative review, encompassing changes to cancer care as a result of COVID-19, the psychological effects of treatment delays, and strategies to mitigate these effects. A number of review articles and guideline bodies have provided guidance on patients for whom treatment may be safely delayed, including low-risk bladder, prostate and kidney tumors, as well as intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Mental health diagnoses are prevalent in patients with genitourinary malignancies. Evidence regarding psychologic effects of deferred treatment is limited to those with low risk of disease related morbidity. In this population, psychologic distress attenuated with time. However, in the COVID-19 context, patients with advanced disease are particularly prone to psychologic distress, as are women and younger patients. Strategies to mitigate this distress are emerging and center on recognition from the treating oncologist with appropriate referral as necessary to psycho-oncology providers and engagement of peer-supports. The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped social structures and health care delivery. For patients with genitourinary malignancies, this may be associated with significant distress, particularly among those with advanced disease and those undergoing active treatment. Physicians treating these patients need to be aware of the psychologic stress the combined effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer diagnosis, and cancer treatment can have and make appropriate referrals to support the holistic care of their patients.

Both trusting and understanding medical advice: Assessing patient alliance and confusion after medical consultations

OBJECTIVE

The current objective is to validate the Medical Consultation Experience Questionnaire (MCEQ) and to examine distinctions between constructs of patient perceived alliance and experienced confusion in relation to key health outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 857 participants were recruited online across two samples (adults with various medical conditions and with diabetes and/or hypertension specifically).

RESULTS

A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated good fit and high item loadings for the theoretical bifactor model. Item response theory analyses showed very high individual item discrimination and good test information across a wide range of values. Confusion was uniquely and significantly more strongly related to psychological distress than was alliance; the same was true for alliance with positive affect. Both alliance and confusion significantly contributed to treatment motivation. Only confusion explained unique variance in control of HbA1C levels and blood pressure after controlling for alliance and other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCEQ is a valid instrument for assessing distinct constructs of alliance and confusion. Future research should focus on the unique role of confusion for patient outcomes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

By using the MCEQ to assess patient alliance and confusion, it may be possible to detect and prioritize individual patient needs and improve patient outcomes.

How can we explain physician accuracy in assessing patient distress? A multilevel analysis in patients with advanced cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine the determinants of the accuracy with which physicians assess metastatic cancer patient distress, also referred to as their empathic accuracy (EA). Hypothesized determinants were physician empathic attitude, self-efficacy in empathic skills, physician-perceived rapport with the patient, patient distress and patient expressive suppression.

METHODS

Twenty-eight physicians assessed their patients' distress level on the distress thermometer, while patients (N=201) independently rated their distress level on the same tool. EA was the difference between both scores in absolute value. Hypothesized determinants were assessed using self-reported questionnaires. Multilevel analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

Little of the variance in EA was explained by physician variables. EA was higher with higher levels of patient distress. Physician-perceived quality of rapport was positively associated with EA. However, for highly distressed patients, good rapport was associated with lower EA. Patient expressive suppression was also related to lower EA.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to the understanding of EA in oncological settings, particularly in challenging the common assumption that EA depends largely on physician characteristics or that better rapport would always favor higher EA.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians should ask patients for feedback regarding their emotions. In parallel, patients should be prompted to express their concerns.