Search

Across the world, challenges for clinicians providing health care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are highly prevalent and have been widely reported. Perspectives of provider groups have conveyed wide-ranging experiences of adversity, distress, and resilience. In understanding and responding to the emotional and psychological implications of the pandemic for renal clinicians, it is vital to recognize that many experiences also have been ethically challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted rapid and extensive transformation of health care systems and widely impacted care provision, heightening the risk of barriers to fulfillment of ethical duties. Given this, it is likely that some clinicians also have experienced moral distress, which can occur if an individual is unable to act in accordance with their moral judgment owing to external barriers. This review presents a global perspective of potential experiences of moral distress in kidney care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using nephrology cases, we discuss why moral distress may be experienced by health professionals when withholding or withdrawing potentially beneficial treatments owing to resource constraints, when providing care that is inconsistent with local prepandemic best practice standards, and when managing dual professional and personal roles with conflicting responsibilities. We argue that in addition to responsive and appropriate health system supports, resources, and education, it is imperative for health care providers to recognize and prevent moral distress to foster the psychological well-being and moral resilience of clinicians during extended periods of crisis within health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have significant morbidity, yet for many, access to palliative care occurs late, if at all. This study sought to examine criteria for referral to specialist palliative care for adults with advanced CKD with a view to improving use of these essential services. Systematic review of studies detailing referral criteria to palliative care in advanced CKD conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and registered (PROSPERO: CRD42021230751). Electronic databases (Ovid, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed) were used to identify potential studies, which were subjected to double review, data extraction, thematic coding, and descriptive analyses. Searches yielded 650 unique titles ultimately resulting in 56 studies addressing referral criteria to specialist palliative care in advanced CKD. Of 10 categories of referral criteria, most commonly discussed were: Critical times of treatment decision making (n = 23, 41%); physical or emotional symptoms (n = 22, 39%); limited prognosis (n = 18, 32%); patient age and comorbidities (n = 18, 32%); category of CKD/ biochemical criteria (n = 13, 23%); functional decline (n = 13, 23); psychosocial needs (n = 9, 16%); future care planning (n = 9, 16%); anticipated decline in illness course (n = 8, 14%); and hospital use (n = 8, 14%). Clinicians consider referral to specialist palliative care for a wide range of reasons, with many related to care needs. As palliative care continues to integrate with nephrology, our findings represent a key step towards developing consensus criteria to standardize referral for patients with chronic kidney diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]