PC-FACS

To examine whether routine assessment of distress, recommended as part of comprehensive cancer care, is utilised equally with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) vs non-CALD people living with cancer. A medical records review of all patients attending cancer-specific treatment units at a single tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia between 2015-2018. Recording of administration of the Distress Thermometer and Problem Checklist (DT and PC) was extracted for all patients. Details regarding how the DT and PC (used together) was administered were extracted for a random sub-sample of 294 CALD patients and 294 matched non-CALD patients. A total of 6977 patients were identified (12.0% CALD). Just over half of the CALD (54.7%) and non-CALD (58.2%) patients had a recorded DT and PC (P > 0.05). For the sub-sample analysis, CALD patients were less likely to complete the form themselves (14.8% vs 75.9% non-CALD) and were more likely to have a family member complete the form (55.1% vs 15.1% non-CALD). CALD patients reported a similar level of distress to non-CALD patients. Distress scores for CALD and non-CALD patients were higher when family members completed the form. Provision of discussion, written information, referral offers and rates of referral acceptance were similar between CALD and non-CALD patients. Assessment of distress and associated problems, and the process following assessment, were similar for CALD and non-CALD patients. However, differences in how the form was completed highlight the need for further improvements to ensure that CALD patients are actively involved in their care.

How decisions are made and communication is handled are essential to ensuring a good outcome.In the case of Scardoni v Hawryluck,1 Mrs H was an 81-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer disease, cardiovascular illness, and septic shock whose family and physician could not agree on goals for care, requiring that a legal decision be made regarding the level of care to be provided. Over time and after much discussion, the multidisciplinary team on the intensive care unit (ICU) reached a consensus that intensive care for Mrs H would not improve her condition. So it was decided that after Mrs H was stepped down to a general medical unit, should an infection or respiratory distress develop, she would not be returned to the ICU. The attending ICU physician informed the family that instead of ICU care, “the hospital would offer her palliative care: painkillers and sedatives to keep her comfortable while her afflictions took their course.”2 In this particular case, the patient’s family challenged the health care team’s recommendations and insisted that their mother be readmitted to the ICU so that aggressive life-sustaining treatment would continue.This case, although Canadian, is relevant to ICU settings throughout North America. The purpose of this discussion is not to provide an in-depth ethical analysis, but rather to use the case of Mrs H to characterize one type of health care situation that clinical ethicists could help facilitate. Medical recommendations such as those involved in the care of Mrs H are made to prevent the “revolving door” patient, who according to ICU teams will receive no medical benefit if returned to the ICU. Decisions not to readmit are euphemistically referred to by some ICU staff as the “one-way ticket out of ICU” or “celestial transfer.” Such language shared between colleagues reflects a coping strategy, a “gallows humor,” intended to manage difficult feelings like sadness, anger, grief, sympathy, or moral distress. Cases like that of Mrs H are of particular concern to critical care nursing. Research has indicated that moral distress, a significant contributing factor to burnout, is encountered by ICU nurses when the care they are providing to a patient is regarded as futile.3It is not uncommon for hospital-based clinical ethicists to receive a request for consultation when disputes regarding similar recommendations for care arise between substitute decision makers and the ICU treatment team. These cases can lead to moral distress because of commonly held opinions among team members that futile treatment is being provided. Although staff can provide many life-sustaining treatments to such a patient, ethical questions often arise during the patient’s stay in the ICU. What ought to happen when an ICU team decides that a patient should be transferred to a general medical unit to receive comfort measures only, with no readmission to the ICU? Although teams discuss the practical questions about what can be done, the ethical questions about what ought to be done are sometimes not as clear. The following discussion explores how clinical ethicists can provide valuable assistance with the kinds of ethical challenges these situations customarily present. Particular emphasis will be placed on working within a process-driven, interdisciplinary framework that maintains a communication-oriented approach to ethical decision making.Clinical ethics is a relatively new field, and the role and purpose of clinical ethicists can vary somewhat according to the particular health care setting. For the purpose of this discussion, the authors describe the knowledge, skills, and activities of clinical ethicists through their review of relevant literature as well as their own training and experiences as staff clinical ethicists at 2 acute care settings in Ontario, Canada.Greater legal clarity or legislative measures to specifically address conflicts that arise over withdrawal or withholding of treatment for terminally ill patients are required, according to at least one legal expert. Current Canadian law, according to this same scholar, leaves doctors, patients and their families in a “grey zone” as to who should have ultimate authority on such decisions.4 The daily reality in most North American ICUs is that this gray zone persists—for better or worse. Although hospitals attempt to provide guidelines for addressing conflicts such as the one involving Mrs H, it is the quality of communication and relationship within the interdisciplinary team and between the treating team and the patient’s family that has a marked influence on decision making.5–7 In most cases similar to this one, consensus about level of care is first achieved by the interdisciplinary team, and a subsequent agreement is reached between the treatment team and the patient’s substitute decision maker and family. However, when agreement cannot be reached because of irreconcilable notions pertaining to what constitutes benefit to the patient and what constitutes harm, the results can be uncertain, stressful, and most unsatisfactory for both the health professionals involved and the patient’s family. This combination of an unfortunate turn of events for the patient, sharing of bad news with family members, and the recommendation for care outside of the ICU is a juncture of decision making at which conflict can occur and ethical challenges are most apparent to members of the interdisciplinary team.8,9Much has been written about the difficulties in communication within the ICU and how this affects patient care. Considerable evidence indicates that communication between the ICU team, patients, and patients’ families can be inadequate, leading to conflict and a possible long-term effect on the patient’s family.6,8,10,11 In one study,8 46% of families who had a loved one die in the ICU reported conflict over decisions to withdraw or withhold life-support measures. These family members also reported conflict over the manner in which staff communicated with or behaved toward them. The authors of that study8 cited family members who felt pressured by staff to “hasten their loved one’s death because they placed a burden on valued resources.” The importance of communication between treatment teams and patients and patients’ families cannot be overstated. In addressing the difficulties and deficiencies that have been identified, 2 experts concluded, “communication with caregivers is consistently identified as the most important and least achieved factor in patient/family satisfaction surveys.”12Intensive care is primarily intended to provide maximum benefit to those patients who are likely to recover from their infirmity or trauma.13 When the interdisciplinary team is not clearly communicating ethical considerations as well as the criteria they are using to determine the effectiveness or success of the treatment plan, patients’ families may develop erroneous expectations that life-sustaining interventions will continue to be offered.6 At the same time as a loved one is receiving ICU care with a grim prognosis, families are struggling to come to terms with impending loss. Family functioning or experience in coping with loss,14 unrealistic expectations regarding health outcome, within a societal context of diverse religious or cultural beliefs, can markedly influence families’ decision making about end-of-life care. Such formidable contributing factors further emphasize that effective communication strategies, as well as an appropriate level of sensitivity, ought to be used in ICUs when dealing with patients’ families.11Team communication, in particular communication between disciplines, also has proven problematic in decisions about end-of-life care in the ICU. Critical care nurses have cited difficulties in communication and decision making within interdisciplinary ICU teams. Ferrand et al15 reported that 75% of the nursing staff who participated believed that “collaboration was inadequate during decision making” despite general agreement that such team collaboration is necessary and desired. In another study,16 about one-third of the ICU nurses who participated felt “excluded by physicians from patient care decisions and felt their exclusion to be a detriment to patient care.”In terms of the burdens carried in making decisions about end-of-life care, some evidence suggests that physicians and nurses experience equal burdens. Physicians experience the burdens associated with having to make these decisions, and nurses feel the burden of having to carry out care decisions made by someone else.17 Given the shared burdens that members of the interdisciplinary team face, as well as the reported difficulties in end-of-life care decision making in the ICU, ensuring effective communication is a key feature of high-quality patient care.7 The following discussion is intended to demonstrate how clinical ethicists can be supportive of such strategies for effective communication and decision making.Medical recommendations like those pertaining to the care of patients such as Mrs H are based on best-practice standards of care and are informed by ethical principles like beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy. Continued life-sustaining support in situations where benefit is in question can be regarded as futile, a concept with inherent ethical challenges. As Weijer et al18 point out, the values inherent in medical futility arguments often confuse treatment considered ineffective and treatment that will be effective but will ultimately result in a controversial outcome such as permanent unconsciousness. A team’s decision to not readmit a patient for ICU care can be an attempt to address futility based on controversial outcomes that the team may perceive as causing more harm for the patient than good. Poignantly stated, “if the welfare of the patient is the whole purpose of providing treatment and if that treatment brings needless suffering, then the whole purpose of medicine is defeated.”19 Although the concept of futility in ICU care is a subject worthy of ethical debate, it will not be the focus of this discussion. Rather, the subject of this discussion is the role of clinical ethicists in helping decision makers address ethical considerations such as futility.The results of inadequate communication, misunderstandings, or disagreements arising from divergent views about what is beneficent and the institutional realities surrounding resource allocation can be seen in the moral distress and subsequent moral residue experienced by both the patient’s family members and the health care staff involved. Moral distress occurs when a person can identify the ethically appropriate course of action, but does not feel able to carry this action forward because of barriers that may include lack of resources, legal limits, institutional obstacles, or imbalances in power, for example. Effects of moral distress on an individual can include feelings of anger, frustration, anxiety, or depression.20 Moral residue can be encountered when “deeply held beliefs, values and principles” are set aside at the expense of one’s personal sense of integrity.21 For families of patients, moral residue can manifest in lifelong memories about difficult health care experiences.The experience of moral distress and moral residue are of particular importance to critical care nursing. Some evidence indicates a relationship between an ICU care nurse’s perception of providing futile care, inadequate communication about the care plan within the interdisciplinary team, and the incidence of moral distress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout.3,16,22 Cases like that of Mrs H can present these kinds of challenges to nurses providing care at the bedside. The discussion also highlights how clinical ethicists can assist interdisciplinary teams in addressing ethical challenges that can lead to moral distress.Finally, the ethical climate within our health care settings is shaped by the organizational values inherent in hospital policies, approaches to handling conflict, allocation of human and material resources, the daily-lived experience of staff providing care, and those to whom care is provided.23,24 Economic constraints, resource allocation difficulties, and staffing shortages contribute to the moral climate of health settings, the moral distress of staff, and burnout among health care providers.25,26In cases such as that of Mrs H, the ethical challenges are not just about treatment requests considered inadvisable but also about scarce resources like ventilator-equipped beds in ICU settings. In the minds of some families, the need for an ICU bed is the primary reason that palliative measures are now being recommended. When conflict surrounds decisions about level of care, it is the bedside ICU nurse who fields the questions, concerns, and emotions expressed by patients’ families.It is through such challenging decision making, in which no agreement is reached, that the moral climate is regrettably defined for all persons with a stake in the decision. However oppressive these disagreements feel to both health care professionals and patients’ family members, most often the disagreements, ironically, do not result from a lack of good intentions on either side of the debate. Rather, these circumstances reflect the complex ethical challenges that are inherent in contemporary health care settings. Clinical ethicists can be an important resource to health care teams, patients, and patients’ families in addressing these difficult challenges.Clinical ethicists who provide consultative services may be requested by the ICU team when conflicts such as the one surrounding the planning of Mrs H’s level of care arise. What are the characteristics, skills, and knowledge that make clinical ethicists a useful resource in helping to address conflict over decisions about level of care for stable but critically ill ICU patients?Clinical ethicists come from a diverse background of training: clinical and academic experiences that include but are not limited to medicine, nursing, social work, theology, philosophy, and anthropology. Most clinical ethicists have advanced academic degrees and/or training in clinical ethics. Despite this diversity in background, clinical ethicists engage in common functions: consultative services, research, education and the development of policies pertaining to patient care and organizational ethics.27–29Clinical ethicists are trained to view ethical problems within an interdisciplinary health care environment whose primary commitment should always be to provide the best patient care possible. Patient care and goals for care are best understood through the wishes, beliefs, and values of the patient and the patient’s family. The approach taken by clinical ethicists in providing consultation is to model interdisciplinary collaboration and effective communication with patients and their families, with the objective of enhancing ethical decision making.28–30In effect, clinical ethicists in cases such as the one involving Mrs H act as facilitators of communication and decision making about goals for care, while directing attention to the ethical considerations underlying such decisions. Generally, clinical ethicists can help clarify differences in the way ethical considerations such as sanctity or quality of life are valued on the basis of religious, personal, or cultural values. Some evidence suggests that ethics consultation generally has been useful in preventing or resolving conflicts, and in reducing the incidence of prolonged controversial treatment.31,32 Current trends in the training and education of clinical ethicists have emphasized skills, knowledge, and expertise better suited to provide ethics support in real time as dilemmas and conflict around decisions related to patient care unfold.28What is particularly important about the approach used by most clinical ethicists is the emphasis placed on fair and just processes for decisions of such importance and consequence in an ICU environment.In cases such as the one involving Mrs H, it is not just what decision ought to be made that is of interest to clinical ethicists, but if and why a particular decision is ethically defensible. If so, to whom is it ethically defensible? How ought discussions and conflicts be managed? These questions raise ethical concerns about justice, fairness, and a reasoned approach to decisions of such consequence. Ethical consideration must also be given to the moral climate, how people feel treated, and the concerns and opinions of key persons with a stake in the decision making, with overarching consideration given to trust in the process used to make such important decisions. Therefore clinical ethicists are as concerned with procedural fairness as they are with outcome when assisting with ethically challenging situations in health care settings.Principal aspects of procedural fairness are as follows: that the process for decision making be as transparent as possible to all involved; that concerns of key persons with a stake in the decision making be considered; that the reasons or rationale behind decisions can be understood and defended; that people responsible for decisions be held accountable; and that in the event disagreement occurs, decisions can be reviewed, taking into account the concerns of those who disagree.33 Process-driven approaches to decision making or to resolving conflict used by clinical ethicists are dependent on using frameworks to guide communication. Such frameworks for communication are not just ethically defensible; they have been shown empirically to be part of good practice standards in ICU settings.6,11,34 Lilly et al35(pS398) found that using a standardized framework for communication resulted in health care providers seeing decision making as a “process rather than as an event”—an attribute consistent with principles for ethical decision making.An example of such a framework to guide communication is described by Lautrette et al,34 who identify such attributes as timeliness, opportunities for the patient’s family to speak, use of appropriate and sensitive language, and ensuring that the setting is private and comfortable. In addition to these attributes, clinical ethicists would include discussion of the values in conflict and ethical obligations that underscore decision making.Frameworks for communication appear well supported in the literature anyway, so what makes the involvement of clinical ethicists of added benefit?Despite advances in implementing communication strategies in many settings, improvement in general is needed in managing communication, enhancing understanding, and meeting needs of ICU patients and their families.6,8,10,11 Furthermore, Sherwin36 believes that communication frameworks and hospital policies can be used coercively, to enforce a particular outcome, if those who lead these discussions or who adhere to policies are not reflecting on personal biases, institutional pressures, and ethical considerations.Clinical ethicists act as facilitators, helping to raise important ethical questions, model effective communication, and model ethical decision making by using teachable moments to heighten the awareness and understanding of the ethical considerations in each case. Within most health care settings, necessary and unavoidable imbalances in power are present between various persons who have a stake in the decision making. Clinical ethicists assist in discussing the values that underlie decisions of such importance, making these transparent to and understood by key involved parties. They model the principles of procedural fairness. Inherently challenging decisions about level of care, as in the case of Mrs H, are often met with challenging feelings and opinions, making fairness and ethical reflection more important than less to involved parties.Clinical ethicists advocate for policies and practices that reduce coercive consequences that can arise when members of the ICU treatment team, patients, or patients’ family members feel overruled or dismissed. In conducting an ethics consultation, the clinical ethicist leads discussions with the interdisciplinary team members about ethical considerations that contribute to moral distress, for example, the conflict in the way benefit and harm associated with a particular therapy or level of care are understood. In most instances, the clinical ethicist must ensure that concerns raised by members of the interdisciplinary team and concerns expressed by patients’ family members are shared and considered. This process is handled in an open and transparent manner. In creating an opportunity through the consultative process for the interdisciplinary team to address concerns, related to both areas of conflict and moral distress, clinical ethicists are also capitalizing on valuable teachable moments in which knowledge about ethics and decision making can be enhanced. As Kälvemark Sporrong et al37(p835) concluded, “Ethical competence is a key factor in preventing or reducing moral distress.”We have found that consultation on an individual case often helps treatment teams identify preventative strategies to reduce or avoid conflict and to engage in more timely discussion about ethics the next time a complex care situation arises. Such measures are necessary in creating a moral climate in which discussion about ethics in daily practice can be supported and thus reducing the effects or incidence of moral distress. The potential exists for all members of the interdisciplinary ICU team, including the most responsible physician, to be so engaged in ethical reflection and decision making on challenging cases. Clinical ethicists model skills of effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making as well as principles of procedural fairness within the consultative process that they facilitate.We are not suggesting that effective communication, procedural fairness, ethical reflection, and decision making are deficient whenever clinical ethicists are not involved in such cases. In reality, complex and ethically challenging cases occur routinely in ICU settings, most often without the involvement of clinical ethicists. What is being proposed is that clinical ethicists should be seen as a valuable resource for addressing challenging cases in the ICU. Better understanding is needed about the role of clinical ethicists and the kinds of assistance they can provide.In most cases, the ICU team and patient’s family agree on recommendations that comfort measures be provided on a medical intermediate care unit or a palliative care unit for a stable but critically ill patient. However, as in the case of Mrs H, these decisions may be met with considerable emotion from the patient’s family and with differences of opinion about benefit and the appropriate level of care. We think that clinical ethicists can be a valuable resource when challenging cases arise. By providing consultation, clinical ethicists can model effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making, while following principles of procedural fairness, all of which are key elements to upholding ethics in daily practice and are of particular importance when conflict occurs about level of care in the ICU.The following are practical considerations for critical care nurses:

MA22.06 Longer Lung Cancer Time Intervals Amongst Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Patient Than Anglo-Australian Patients

PC-FACS

Background: The intensive care unit (ICU) is a busy and complex workplace, and several work-related and personal factors are known to make ICU nurses more vulnerable to moral distress than other healthcare professionals. It is crucial to identify these factors to guide future studies and preventive strategies. This scoping review explores such factors to present current knowledge on the factors that trigger moral distress and to guide future research by reviewing studies to explore and summarize factors that trigger moral distress in ICU nurses. Methods: The PubMed, EBSCO, and CINAHL Plus databases were searched to identify potentially relevant studies published between 2011 to 2022. Inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed studies published in English that provided results regarding factors causes or correlated to moral distress in ICU nurses. After removing 63 duplicates, 371 papers were excluded after title and abstract screening, leaving 47 articles for full-text screening. A further 30 articles were excluded as their outcomes did not include factors that caused moral distress, or were not specific to ICU nurses, so 17 studies were eventually analysed using qualitative content analysis through an inductive approach. The findings of the articles were extracted and coded independently by two authors, and data were grouped and categorized. Results: The content categories of factors contributing to ICU nurses' moral distress were organized into themes and subthemes. Four major themes were identified: Powerlessness, end-of-life care, ineffective teamwork, and personal characteristics of ICU nurses. Conclusions: This review highlights the factors that contribute to moral distress in critical care nurses, which are mainly attributable to the organizational climate and the nature of the ICU clinical environment. Descriptive and intervention studies (experimental or action research) must investigate causality between identified variables to inform management strategies to improve support for ICU nurses’ coping relative to moral distress.

Public Awareness and Perceptions of Palliative and Comfort Care

Evidence-Based Review and Discussion Points

<h3>Aim</h3> To examine perceptions of the appropriateness of Advance Care Planning (ACP) among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) populations in oncology and explore preferences for who, needs to do what, where, when and to whom across the phase of ACP. <h3>Background</h3> ACP is a critical process that enables individuals to define, discuss, and document their future healthcare preferences, improving patient-centred care and reducing unwanted interventions. Despite its benefits, ACP uptake remains low particularly among CALD populations- who experience significant disparities in access, awareness, and implementation. Healthcare professionals often report challenges in initiating ACP conversations with CALD patients, contributing to missed opportunities for early and meaningful discussions. Given that individuals from CALD backgrounds comprise approximately 30% of Australia’s population, it is imperative to determine if ACP practices are culturally appropriate concepts and to better understand how to ensure equitable access and culturally appropriate engagement. <h3>Main Narrative</h3> Applying implementation science methods, we explored attitudes towards and preferences for ACP uptake among CALD patients in oncology settings. Recruiting people of Indian and Chinese ethnicity, we used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework to map ACP processes, identifying misalignments in preferences, expectations, and practice between healthcare providers and CALD patients at key touchpoints across the phases of ACP. Acceptability of current practice at touchpoints spanning ACP phases (preparing for the conversation, having the conversation, creating the document, and enacting the document) varied amongst CALD consumer groups identifying where culturally appropriate interventions are needed to improve opportunity for ACP uptake. <h3>Unique Contribution</h3> This is the first study to systematically map preferences across ACP pathways for CALD populations from the perspectives of both healthcare professionals and CALD consumers. By embedding consumer insights into intervention design, this work has the potential to inform ACP strategies that are inclusive, scalable, and culturally safe. <h3>Implications for Policy and Practice</h3> Findings will inform policy and practice reforms by embedding culturally safe and sensitive approaches to introducing/discussing ACP into routine oncology care. Addressing these barriers is critical to reducing inequities and enhancing opportunities for ACP engagement.

Although many diabetes self-management apps exist, these are not tailored for people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. This study aimed to explore GP perceptions of how diabetes app features could help GPs better support their patients from CALD backgrounds. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews with GPs in Western Sydney explored attitudes towards a proposed app's suitability for CALD patients. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded using Framework Analysis. Theme 1 explored the implications of perceptions that patients' health literacy is dependent on the language used. Theme 2 explored the influence of messaging from sources that share the patient's language and culture (including misinformation from community sources). Theme 3 described the suitability of the app platform for CALD patients, and its potential challenges in this group. GPs perceived that a diabetes app could be useful for providing support to patients from CALD backgrounds. Findings suggest app features should be optimised to address existing challenges that GPs face and carefully consider strategies for recruiting CALD patients. It is important that GPs feel comfortable promoting an app to their CALD patients to help increase participation rates by people in the CALD community.

We appreciate your dedication to providing timely and appropriate palliative care services to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and for your questions regarding our article. We agree that the use of the tool is central to achieving desired outcomes. Regarding your question about the use of the tool Monday through Friday, this timing was a noted process limitation in the unit where the research was being conducted. Full team ICU rounds only occurred Monday through Friday. However, the tool was completed by the bedside nurse 7 days a week. On the weekend, the results of the palliative care screening could be conveyed to the provider and a palliative care consult could be pursued.In designing this process several years ago, we discussed the use of the tool to initiate an automatic palliative care consult. We noted that we had a blended model of both the consultative model and integrative model as referenced in Nelson et al.1 This dynamic process is informed by real-time availability of palliative care consultants (consultative model) in proximity to the identified need, the complexity of the consult, and the relationship already established by an intensivist who may have already adequately addressed the palliative care needs (integrative model). We discussed the automatic consult and this existing dynamic process and determined that it would be most efficient for the process and beneficial for the patient/family if the intensivist/attending provider was to determine if the palliative care needs had already been met or if a consult to the palliative care team would be indicated.Thank you for your insightful questions regarding the race of the 7 non-White participants who did not receive palliative care. Among these 7 patients, 4 were Black/African American and 3 were Indigenous/Native American. Although the small sample precludes additional analysis, we hope future researchers will work to understand and address racial disparities in access to palliative care.Your comments regarding moral distress are thoughtfully stated, and we certainly recognize that variables contributing to moral distress should be acknowledged and addressed to the extent possible within each organization and their ICUs. This issue is complex and can present a challenge when trying to assign weight to the different variables contributing to moral distress in the care and treatment of these ICU patients. Although it would seem ideal to have an automatic consultation model, multiple factors would need to be considered to avoid causing further moral distress and/or frustration. These factors include, but are not limited to, the existence of a palliative consultation team within the organization, the team's expertise in consulting on ICU patients, the urgency of the consult, the team's availability to consult in the ICU on any given day or at a given time, the knowledge and skill of providing palliative care services among those who are not palliative care consultants, and the culture within the ICU, which is a foundational component to any ICU palliative care program.Noting these factors, it is important to consider the features of the integrative model of palliative care. This model brings additional value,addresses the limitation of formal palliative care consultation resources 24/7, and is complementary to a consultative model. We believe the challenge in addressing the moral distress related to the palliative care process is to find the appropriate balance of these 2 models within each organization and ICU. This balance involves acknowledgment of current resources, dedication to enhancing formal palliative care consultation where possible, and provision of training for staff to leverage the benefits of the integrative model. All team members, including providers, nurses, social workers, and chaplains, must be committed to establishing a culture of trust and support built on the foundation of adequate palliative care knowledge and skills, which will result in timely action when the palliative care screening is indicative of a palliative care need. Potential moral distress resulting from perceived constraints in the process can certainly be mitigated through a balanced consultative/integrative model approach. This process of provider-to-provider consultation need not be seen as a barrier but rather a benefit to the process in ensuring we have appropriately assessed the palliative care opportunity for each appropriate patient and determined the best solution to meet those needs.Your comments are timely. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has exposed existing deficiencies in our health care system, including lack of access to palliative care. We are grateful for your commitment to improving ICU palliative care, and we look forward to working together as a health care community to ensure access to high-quality palliative care.

To investigate differences in presenting patient characteristics, investigation, management and related outcomes between culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and non-CALD chest pain (CP) patients presenting to the ED. A cohort study of 258 patients was enrolled on presentation to Liverpool Hospital ED with a complaint of CP over a 2-week period. Main outcomes included frequency and timeliness of diagnostic and radiological investigations, medication administered and ED length of stay. Administrative and clinical data were extracted and linked from Cerner EMR FirstNet®, PowerChart® and paper records. There were 155 (60%) CALD and 103 (40%) non-CALD patients. CALD patients were older by 10 years (95% CI 4, 15; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the number of pathology and imaging investigations carried out in each group, and similarly there were no significant differences in the number of patients administered analgesia or cardiac-specific medications. Neither group differed in their ED length of stay (median 280 vs 259.5 min; P = 0.79) or hospital admission rate (median 56% vs 55%, P = 0.8). Both CALD and non-CALD ED CP patients had similar test ordering, medication administration and clinical outcomes, but this was in the context of CALD patients being 10 years older together with a small study sample size. A larger cohort, matched for age, would provide further insights into potentially important differences.

1587 Background: Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations and First Nations People are at-risk communities who face unique challenges in cancer diagnosis and management resulting in inequities. Optimal Care Pathways (OCP) established by Cancer Council Australia aim to address these disparities. The Breast cancer OCP outlines an integrated model of care with optimal timeframes such as time from general practitioner (GP) referral to specialist surgical review, time from decision to treat to surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and time from completion of NAC to surgery. Methods: Retrospective data was collected for all CALD (migrant from non-English speaking country and/or primary language identified as not English) and First Nations patients diagnosed with breast cancer treated at a regional centre in Australia (Townsville University Hospital) from 2018 – 2022. A comparison cohort (control) of consecutive non-CALD, non-First Nations patients was included. Data collected included patient demographics, tumour characteristics, stage, and identified timeframes which were compared with OCP. Results: 133 patients were included with 43 CALD (32%), 41 First Nations (31%) and 50 control (37%). CALD and First Nations cohorts had higher rates of stage IV disease at diagnosis (12 v 15%) compared to control cohort (0%). They were also more likely to be diagnosed via emergency department admission (CALD 16 v First Nations 7%) compared to control cohort (0%) suggesting later presentation. Of those referred through OCP defined GP pathway, a similar percentage were reviewed by specialist surgeon within optimal 2-week timeframe in all groups (CALD 47%; First Nations 39%; control 44%). Median time from decision to treat to surgery were longer in CALD versus control groups (19 v 13 days; p = 0.03), and in First Nations versus control groups (22 v 13 days; p = 0.02). Less CALD (89%, n = 24) and First Nations (82%, n = 18) patients underwent surgery within optimal 5-week timeframe compared to control (98%, n = 40). Similarly, median time from decision to treat to NAC were longer in CALD versus control groups (19 v 14 days; p = 0.05), and First Nations versus control groups (20 v 14 days; p = 0.03). Most patients (91%, n = 29) commenced NAC within optimal 4-week timeframe; 2 CALD and 1 First Nations patients did not. Median time from completion of NAC to surgery was longer in CALD versus control groups (29 v 24 days; p = 0.15), and in First Nations versus control groups (35 v 24 days; p = 0.04). Of those who recieved NAC, 100% CALD (n = 9), 69% First Nations (n = 9), and 89% control (n = 8) patients underwent surgery within optimal 4-week timeframe. Conclusions: Achievement of key OCP timeframes was lower in both CALD populations and First Nations People. Strategies need to be further developed to address the delays and health outcome disparities in these vulnerable cohorts.

What's in this Special Issue

The increasing prevalence of moral distress in the stressful environment of the intensive care unit (ICU) provides grounds for nursing error and endangers patients' health, safety, and even life. One of the most important reasons for this distress is the treatment team's second victim syndrome (SVS), especially nurses, following errors in the treatment system. The present study aimed to determine the relationship between moral distress and SVS in ICUs. This cross-sectional study involved a sample size of 96 ICU nurses working in hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran, in the 2021-2022 period, who were selected via a simple random sampling method. Data were collected using the Demographic Questionnaire, the second victim experience and support tool (SVEST) and Moral Distress Scale-Revised (MDS-R). Descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency, mean, and SD) and analytical tests (Spearman correlation coefficient test, independent t-test, and ANOVA) were employed for data analysis. This study used a sample size of 96 intensive care unit nurses working in hospitals affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences selected by simple random sampling. The study obtained research ethics approval, and all participants were informed of the voluntary and anonymous nature of their participation. The results showed that 59.4% of nurses suffered a low level of moral distress, and 40.6% suffered from a moderate level of moral distress. The SVS score of 86.5% of the nurses was moderate. There was no significant and direct correlation between moral distress and SVS in nurses; however, there was a significant and inverse correlation between the moral distress intensity and SVS (p = 0.011). Despite no significant correlation between moral distress and SVS, these variables were at moderate levels. Accordingly, it is suggested to provide a proper ground for expressing morally stressful situations, counseling and training strategies to deal with moral distress, creating support resources for those suffering from SVS, and implementing empowerment programs.

Nurses experience moral distress when they feel disempowered or impeded in taking the ethically right course of action. Research suggests an inverse relationship between moral distress and empowerment. In the intensive care unit, providing palliative care services may reduce moral distress because palliative care is often provided in situations that give rise to moral distress. To evaluate the effect of nurses' use of a palliative care screening tool on their moral distress and perceptions of empowerment. A pretest-posttest pilot study was conducted involving day-shift medical intensive care unit nurses. The nurses administered a palliative care screening tool to their assigned patients daily for 8 weeks and communicated the results to an attending physician or fellow. Demographic information was collected, along with data on nurses' moral distress and perceptions of structural and workplace empowerment before and after the intervention. Moral distress was evaluated using the Moral Distress Scale-Revised. Perceptions of structural and workplace empowerment were quantified using the Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II and the Global Empowerment Scale, respectively. Preintervention and postintervention surveys were completed by 17 nurses. Paired-sample t tests revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of moral distress (t16 = -2.22, P = .04) and a significant increase in workplace empowerment (t16 = -2.75, P = .01). No significant changes in moral distress intensity or structural empowerment were found. Nurses' sense of empowerment and the frequency of moral distress are favorably affected by active participation in assessing and communicating patients' palliative care needs.