Moral Injury Among Frontline Long-Term Care Staff and Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A growing body of research highlights the experiences of moral injury among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moral injury (i.e., participating in or witnessing acts that violate one's central moral values), is associated with a host of psychological sequelae and corresponding negative psychosocial impacts. There is a lack of research examining the experiences of moral injury among those working in long-term care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the drastic impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on long-term care facilities in Canada, it is important to understand the experiences of moral injury among those working in long-term care settings to inform the development of effective prevention and intervention strategies. Objectives & Method The objectives of this study were to understand the experiences and impact of moral injury among Canadian frontline long-term care workers (staff and management) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants ( N = 32 long-term care staff and management working in Ottawa and Manitoba) completed in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews and clinical diagnostic assessments (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interviews; MINI; Version 7.0.2) between March 2021-June 2021. Findings The core category of our qualitative grounded theory model of moral injury in long-term care exemplified four shared types of morally injurious experiences, paired with cognitive, affective, and physiological symptom domains. Seven associated main themes emerged, contributing to the experiences and impact of moral injury in long-term care: 1) Beliefs about older adults and long-term care; 2) Interpretation of morally injurious experiences; 3) Management of morally injurious experiences; 4) Long-term care pandemic impacts; 5) Personal pandemic impacts; 6) Structural impacts in long-term care; and 7) Mental health needs and supports. Clinical assessments demonstrated anxiety disorders ( n = 4) and feeding and eating disorders ( n = 3) were among the most frequently classified current psychiatric disorders among long-term care workers. Conclusions This is the first Canadian study to examine the experiences and impact of moral injury in long-term care during the COVID-19 pandemic using qualitative and clinical diagnostic methodologies. Implications and insights for screening and intervention are offered.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".