Background: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic placed unprecedented strains on the U.S. health care system, putting health care workers (HCWs) at increased risk for experiencing moral injury (MI). Moral resilience (MR), the ability to preserve or restore integrity, has been proposed as a resource to mitigate the detrimental effects of MI among HCWs. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to investigate the prevalence of MI among HCWs, to identify the relationship among factors that predict MI, and to determine whether MR can act as buffer against it. Design: Web-based exploratory survey. Setting/Subjects: HCWs from a research network in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region. Measurements: Survey items included: our outcome, Moral Injury Symptoms Scale–Health Professional (MISS-HP), and predictors including demographics, items derived from the Rushton Moral Resilience Scale (RMRS), and ethical concerns index (ECI). Results: Sixty-five percent of 595 respondents provided COVID-19 care. The overall prevalence of clinically significant MI in HCWs was 32.4%; nurses reporting the highest occurrence. Higher scores on each of the ECI items were significantly positively associated with higher MI symptoms ( p < 0.05). MI among HCWs was significantly related to the following: MR score, ECI score, religious affiliation, and having ≥20 years in their profession. MR was a moderator of the effect of years of experience on MI. Conclusions: HCWs are experiencing MI during the pandemic. MR offers a promising individual resource to buffer the detrimental impact of MI. Further research is needed to understand how to cultivate MR, reduce ECI, and understand other systems level factors to prevent MI symptoms in U.S. HCWs.

Background: There is growing evidence of disparities in access to hospice and palliative care services to varying degrees by sociodemographic groups. Underlying factors contributing to access issues have received little systematic attention. Objective: To synthesize current literature on disparities in access to hospice and palliative care, highlight the range of sociodemographic groups affected by these inequities, characterize the domains of access addressed, and outline implications for research, policy, and clinical practice. Design: An integrative review comprised a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases, which was conducted from inception to March 2020 for studies outlining disparities in hospice and palliative care access in the United States. Data were analyzed using critical synthesis within the context of a health care accessibility conceptual framework. Included studies were appraised on methodological quality and quality of reporting. Results: Of the articles included, 80% employed non-experimental study designs. Study measures varied, but 70% of studies described differences in outcomes by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Others revealed disparate access based on variables such as age, gender, and geographic location. Overall synthesis highlighted evidence of disparities spanning 5 domains of access: Approachability, Acceptability, Availability, Affordability, and Appropriateness; 60% of studies primarily emphasized Acceptability, Affordability, and Appropriateness. Conclusions: This integrative review highlights the need to consider various stakeholder perspectives and attitudes at the individual, provider, and system levels going forward, to target and address access issues spanning all domains.

A history of unethical research and deficit-based paradigms have contributed to profound mistrust of research among Native Americans, serving as an important call to action. Lack of cultural safety...

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore relationships between organizational factors and moral injury among healthcare workers and the impact of perceptions of their leaders and organizations during COVID-19. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 placed healthcare workers at risk for moral injury, which often involves feeling betrayed by people with authority and can impact workplace culture. METHODS: Secondary data from a Web-based survey of mid-Atlantic healthcare workers were analyzed using mixed methods. Data were synthesized using the Reina Trust & Betrayal Model. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent (n = 328/595) of respondents wrote comments. Forty-one percent (n = 134/328) of commenters had moral injury scores of 36 or higher. Three themes emerged: organizational infrastructure, support from leaders, and palliative care involvement. Respondents outlined organizational remedies, which were organized into 5 domains. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest healthcare workers feel trust was breached by their organizations' leaders during COVID-19. Further study is needed to understand intersections between organizational factors and moral injury to enhance trust within healthcare organizations.

Palliative care is a values-driven approach for providing holistic care for individuals and their families enduring serious life-limiting illness. Despite its proven benefits, access and acceptance is not uniform across society. The genesis of palliative care was developed through a traditional Western lens, which dictated models of interaction and communication. As the importance of palliative care is increasingly recognized, barriers to accessing services and perceptions of relevance and appropriateness are being given greater consideration. The COVID-19 pandemic and recent social justice movements in the United States, and around the world, have led to an important moment in time for the palliative care community to step back and consider opportunities for expansion and growth. This article reviews traditional models of palliative care delivery and outlines a modified conceptual framework to support researchers, clinicians, and staff in evaluating priorities for ensuring individualized patient needs are addressed from a position of equity, to create an actionable path forward.

Aim: To refine the Rushton Moral Resilience Scale (RMRS) by creating a more concise scale, improving the reliability, particularly of the personal integrity subscale and providing further evidence of validity.Background: Healthcare workers are exposed to moral adversity in practice. When unable to preserve/restore their integrity, moral suffering ensues. Moral resilience is a resource that may mitigate negative consequences. To better understand mechanisms for doing so, a valid and reliable measurement tool is necessary.Design: Cross‐sectional survey.Methods: Participants (N = 1297) had completed ≥1 items on the RMRS as part of the baseline survey of a larger longitudinal study. Item analysis, confirmatory factor analyses, reliability analyses (Cronbach's alpha), and correlations were used to establish reliability and validity of the revised RMRS.Results: Item and confirmatory factor analysis were used to refine the RMRS from 21 to 16 items. The four‐factor structure (responses to moral adversity, personal integrity, relational integrity and moral efficacy) demonstrated adequate fit in follow‐up confirmatory analyses in the initial and hold‐out sub‐samples. All subscales and the total scale had adequate reliabilities (α ≥ 0.70). A higher‐order factor analysis supports the computation of either subscale scores or a total scale score. Correlations of scores with stress, anxiety, depression and moral distress provide evidence of the scale's validity. Reliability of the personal integrity subscale improved.Conclusion and Implications: The RMRS‐16 demonstrates adequate reliability and validity, particularly the personal integrity subscale. Moral resilience is an important lever for reducing consequences when confronted with ethical challenges in practice. Improved reliability of the four subscales and having a shorter overall scale allow for targeted application and will facilitate further research and intervention development.Patient/Public Contribution: Data came from a larger study of Canadian healthcare workers from multiple healthcare organizations who completed a survey about their experiences during COVID‐19.