MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409591862 · doi:10.1177/08850666251329828

Experiences of Moral Distress in Canadian Intensive Care Unit Professionals During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Exploratory Multiple Case Study in Ontario and Alberta, Canada

2025· article· en· W4409591862 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Monica L. Molinaro, Aimun Qadeer Shah, Asiana Elma, Alison Scholes, Nicole Pinto, Myles Leslie, A Brown, Daniel J. Niven, Kirsten M. Fiest, Elizabeth Peter, Lawrence Grierson, Meredith Vanstone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityImpactMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsContext (archaeology)MedicineDistressGovernment (linguistics)Qualitative researchHealth carePandemicExploratory researchTriageIntensive care unitIntensive careNursingPublic relationsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SociologyMedical emergencyPsychiatryPolitical scienceLawClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, moral distress among healthcare workers in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) has garnered both media and academic attention. Moral distress has been theorized as occurring when individuals are constrained from doing what they perceive as morally right. This study sought to empirically examine the lived experiences of moral distress among clinical and administrative healthcare professionals in a sample of Canadian ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Qualitative case study methodology was used as the overarching approach, collecting and comparing data from two distinct cases: one ICU in Ontario and one in Alberta. Data collection involved two primary sources: semi-structured interviews with staff and document review of institutional and government directives to provide contextual data. Data analysis commenced concurrently with data collection, and generated within- and across-case themes, as well as allowed descriptive accounts of moral distress. Results: Thirty-six healthcare workers across two sites were interviewed. Participants described three primary categories of constraints leading to moral distress. These were: 1) The rapidity and opaqueness of policy development, specifically pertaining to 2) the implementation of family visitation and treatment triage decisions, and 3) resource shortages, which reduced patient interactions, shifted professional responsibilities. Each of these constraints yielded circumstances and forced decisions that were perceived as morally wrong because they compromised care quality and outcomes. Conclusions: While sharing similarities with the growing literature on moral distress in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study reveals new insights on how provincial and institutional policy has direct bearing on experiences of moral distress. Policies and circumstances forced ICU staff to choose between actions they considered the most right and the least wrong. Understanding these specific policy-driven constraints highlights the need for healthcare systems and processes that mitigate moral distress and sustain our health workforce.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0450.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intensive Care MedicineSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207