Background: Providing oncological care to children is demanding and ethical issues concerning what is best for the child can contribute to moral distress. Objectives: To explore healthcare professionals’ experiences of situations that generate moral distress in Swedish paediatric oncology. Research design: In this national study, data collection was conducted using the Swedish Moral Distress Scale-Revised. The data analysis included descriptive statistics and non-parametric analysis of differences between groups. Participants and research context: Healthcare professionals at all paediatric oncology centres in Sweden (...) were invited to participate. A total of 278 healthcare professionals participated. The response rate was 89%. Ethical considerations: In its advisory statement, the Regional Ethical Review Board decided that the study was of such a nature that the legislation concerning ethical reviews was not applicable. All participants received written information about the aim of the study and confidentiality. Participants demonstrated their consent by returning the survey. Findings: The two situations with the highest moral distress scores concerned lack of competence and continuity of personnel. All professional groups reported high levels of disturbance. Nurses rated significantly higher frequencies and higher total Moral Distress Scale scores compared to medical doctors and nursing assistants. Discussion: Lack of competence and continuity, as the two most morally distressing situations, confirms the findings of studies from other countries, where inadequate staffing was reported as being among the top five morally distressing situations. The levels of total Moral Distress Scale scores were more similar to those reported in intensive care units than in other paediatric care settings. Conclusion: The two most morally distressing situations, lack of competence and continuity, are both organisational in nature. Thus, clinical ethics support services need to be combined with organisational improvements in order to reduce moral distress, thereby maintaining job satisfaction, preventing a high turnover of staff and ensuring the quality of care. (shrink)

Background: Childhood cancer care involves many ethical concerns. Deciding on treatment levels and providing care that infringes on the child’s growing autonomy are known ethical concerns that involve the whole professional team around the child’s care. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore healthcare professionals’ experiences of participating in ethics case reflection sessions in childhood cancer care. Research design: Data collection by observations, individual interviews, and individual encounters. Data analysis were conducted following grounded theory methodology. Participants and research (...) context: Healthcare professionals working at a publicly funded children’s hospital in Sweden participated in ethics case reflection sessions in which ethical issues concerning clinical cases were reflected on. Ethical considerations: The children’s and their parents’ integrity was preserved through measures taken to protect patient identity during ethics case reflection sessions. The study was approved by a regional ethical review board. Findings: Consolidating care by clarifying perspectives emerged. Consolidating care entails striving for common care goals and creating a shared view of care and the ethical concern in the specific case. The inter-professional perspectives on the ethical aspects of care are clarified by the participants’ articulated views on the case. Different approaches for deliberating ethics are used during the sessions including raising values and making sense, leading to unifying interactions. Discussion: The findings indicate that ethical concerns could be eased by implementing ethics case reflection sessions. Conflicting perspectives can be turned into unifying interactions in the healthcare professional team with the common aim to achieve good pediatric care. Conclusion: Ethics case reflection sessions is valuable as it permits the discussion of values in healthcare-related issues in childhood cancer care. Clarifying perspectives, on the ethical concerns, enables healthcare professionals to reflect on the most reasonable and ethically defensible care for the child. A consolidated care approach would be valuable for both the child and the healthcare professionals because of the common care goals. (shrink)

Background: In previous research on ethics case reflection (ECR) sessions about specific cases, healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care were clarifying their perspectives on the ethical issue to resolve their main concern of consolidating care. When perspectives were clarified, consequences in the team included ‘increased understanding’, ‘group strengthening’ and ‘decision grounding’. Additional analysis of the data was needed on conditions that could contribute to the quality of ECR sessions. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore conditions for clarifying (...) perspectives during ECR sessions. Research design: Data were collected from observations and interviews and the results emerged from an inductive analysis using grounded theory. Participants and research context: Six observations during ECR sessions and 10 interviews were performed with healthcare professionals working in childhood cancer care and advanced paediatric homecare. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by a regional ethical review board. Participants were informed about their voluntary involvement and that they could withdraw their participation without explaining why. Findings: Two categories emerged: organizational enablers and barriers and team-related enablers and barriers. Organizational enablers and barriers included the following sub-categories: the timing of the ECR session, the structure during the ECR session and the climate during the ECR session. Sub-categories to team-related enablers and barriers were identified as space for inter-professional perspectives, varying levels of ethical skills and space for the patient’s and the family’s perspectives. Discussion: Space for inter-professional perspectives included the dominance of a particular perspective that can result from hierarchical positions. The medical perspective is relevant for understanding the child’s situation but should not dominate the ethical reflection. Conclusion: Conditions for ECR sessions have been explored and the new knowledge can be used when training facilitators as well as for those who organize/implement ECR sessions. Awareness of space for different perspectives, including the possible medical advantage over the nursing perspective, could reduce the somewhat unilateral attention and contribute to an inter-professionally shared reflection. (shrink)

Background: How well ethical concerns are handled in healthcare is influenced by the ethical climate of the workplace, which in this study is described as workplace factors that contribute to healthcare professionals’ ability to identify and deal with ethical issues in order to provide the patient with ethically good care. Objectives: The overall aim of the study was to describe perceptions of the paediatric hospital ethical climate among healthcare professionals who treat/care for children with cancer. Research design: Data were collected (...) using the Hospital Ethical Climate Survey developed by Olsson as a separate section in a questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse perceptions of the ethical climate. Participants and research context: Physicians, nurses and nurse-aides (n = 89) from three paediatric units participated in this study: haematology/oncology, chronic diseases and neurology. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by the regional ethical review board. Findings: Different perceptions of the ethical climate were rated as positive or negative/neutral. Nurses’ ratings were less positive than physicians on all items. One-third of the participants perceived that they were able to practice ethically good care as they believed it should be practised. Discussion: Differences in professional roles, involving more or less power and influence, might explain why physicians and nurses rated items differently. A positive perception of the possibility to practice ethically good care seems to be related to inter-professional trust and listening to guardians/parents. A negative/neutral perception of the possibility to practice ethically good care appears to be influenced by experiences of ethical conflicts as well as a lack of ethical support, for example, time for reflection and discussion. Conclusion: The two-thirds of participants who had a negative/neutral perception of the possibility to practice ethically good care are at risk of developing moral stress. Clinical ethics support needs to be implemented in care where important values are at stake. (shrink)