Canadian Nurse Leaders' Experiences with and Perceptions of Moral Distress: An Interpretive Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moral distress in nursing has been studied across many care contexts, yet there is a paucity of research on the experience among health care leaders.The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences and perceptions of moral distress in nurse leaders.This study used an interpretive description approach interviewing 32 Canadian nurse leaders about their experiences and perceptions of moral distress within their role as a leader and nurse.A constant comparative and thematic analysis process revealed three thematic patterns: (a) leaders suffer moral distress in similar and different ways from their employees; (b) relationships matter in the midst of coping and emerging from moral distress; and (c) navigation through moral distress requires institutional, professional, and personal strategies.These patterns were important structural components in identifying the overarching metaphor of an ethical whirlwind that contextualized the experience as a vortex of constantly changing variables in dynamic interplay on a micro (patient/individual), meso (organizational), and macro (community) level.Findings were extracted from the participants' interpretations of their experiences and from the interpretation of the data that illuminated experiential issues of importance to nurse leaders in relation to moral distress.On the basis of study findings, resiliency, resourcefulness, and self-awareness assisted nursing leaders in navigating and meaning-making of their experiences.Recommendations for leadership practice, policy implications, and future research are suggested to help diminish conditions that produce moral distress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".