4.2 Article

Coping With Moral Distress in Oncology Practice: Nurse and Physician Strategies

期刊

ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 505-512

出版社

ONCOLOGY NURSING SOC
DOI: 10.1188/16.ONF.505-512

关键词

cancer; oncology; coping; caregiver; moral distress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose/Objectives: To explore variations in coping with moral distress among physicians and nurses in a university hospital oncology setting. Research Approach: Qualitative interview study. Setting: Internal medicine (gastroenterology and medical oncology), gastrointestinal surgery, and day clinic chemotherapy at Ghent University Hospital in Belgium. Participants: 17 doctors and 18 nurses with varying experience levels, working in three different oncology hospital settings. Methodologic Approach: Patients with cancer were interviewed based on the critical incident technique. Analyses were performed using thematic analysis. Findings: Moral distress lingered if it was accompanied by emotional distress. Four dominant ways of coping (thoroughness, autonomy, compromise, and intuition) emerged, which could be mapped on two perpendicular continuous axes: a tendency to internalize or externalize moral distress, and a tendency to focus on rational or experiential elements. Each of the ways of coping had strengths and weaknesses. Doctors reported a mainly rational coping style, whereas nurses tended to focus on feelings and experiences. However, people appeared to change their ways of handling moral distress depending on personal or work-related experiences and perceived team culture. Prejudices were expressed about other professions. Conclusions: Moral distress is a challenging phenomenon in oncology. However, when managed well, it can lead to more introspection and team reflection, resulting in a better interpersonal understanding. Interpretation: Team leaders should recognize their own and their team members' preferred method of coping and tailored support should be offered to ease emotional distress.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据