Cargando…
Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry
Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisiona...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9602416/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36292361 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10101914 |
_version_ | 1784817311523274752 |
---|---|
author | Haier, Joerg Beller, Johannes Adorjan, Kristina Bleich, Stefan de Greck, Moritz Griesinger, Frank Heppt, Markus Hurlemann, René Mees, Soeren Torge Philipsen, Alexandra Rohde, Gernot Schilling, Georgia Trautmann, Karolin Combs, Stephanie E. Geyer, Siegfried Schaefers, Juergen |
author_facet | Haier, Joerg Beller, Johannes Adorjan, Kristina Bleich, Stefan de Greck, Moritz Griesinger, Frank Heppt, Markus Hurlemann, René Mees, Soeren Torge Philipsen, Alexandra Rohde, Gernot Schilling, Georgia Trautmann, Karolin Combs, Stephanie E. Geyer, Siegfried Schaefers, Juergen |
author_sort | Haier, Joerg |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9602416 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96024162022-10-27 Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry Haier, Joerg Beller, Johannes Adorjan, Kristina Bleich, Stefan de Greck, Moritz Griesinger, Frank Heppt, Markus Hurlemann, René Mees, Soeren Torge Philipsen, Alexandra Rohde, Gernot Schilling, Georgia Trautmann, Karolin Combs, Stephanie E. Geyer, Siegfried Schaefers, Juergen Healthcare (Basel) Article Background: The early COVID-19-pandemic was characterized by changes in decision making, decision-relevant value systems and the related perception of decisional uncertainties and conflicts resulting in decisional burden and stress. The vulnerability of clinical care professionals to these decisional dilemmas has not been characterized yet. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire study (540 patients, 322 physicians and 369 nurses in 11 institutions throughout Germany) was carried out. The inclusion criterion was active involvement in clinical treatment or decision making in oncology or psychiatry during the first year of COVID-19. The questionnaires covered five decision dimensions (conflicts and uncertainty, resources, risk perception, perception of consequences for clinical processes, and the perception of consequences for patients). Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Pearson rank correlations, and the Chi²-test, and for inferential analysis, nominal logistic regression and tree classification were conducted. Results: Professionals reported changes in clinical management (27.5%) and a higher workload (29.2%), resulting in decisional uncertainty (19.2%) and decisional conflicts (22.7%), with significant differences between professional groups (p < 0.005), including anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress in professional subgroups (p < 0.001). Nominal regression analysis targeting “Decisional Uncertainty” provided a highly significant prediction model (LQ p < 0.001) containing eight variables, and the analysis for “Decisional Conflicts” included six items. The classification rates were 64.4% and 92.7%, respectively. Tree analysis confirmed three levels of determinants. Conclusions: Decisional uncertainty and conflicts during the COVID-19 pandemic were independent of the actual pandemic load. Vulnerable professional groups for the perception of a high number of decisional dilemmas were characterized by individual perception and the psychological framework. Coping and management strategies should target vulnerability, enable the handling of the individual perception of decisional dilemmas and ensure information availability and specific support for younger professionals. MDPI 2022-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9602416/ /pubmed/36292361 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10101914 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Haier, Joerg Beller, Johannes Adorjan, Kristina Bleich, Stefan de Greck, Moritz Griesinger, Frank Heppt, Markus Hurlemann, René Mees, Soeren Torge Philipsen, Alexandra Rohde, Gernot Schilling, Georgia Trautmann, Karolin Combs, Stephanie E. Geyer, Siegfried Schaefers, Juergen Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry |
title | Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry |
title_full | Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry |
title_fullStr | Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry |
title_full_unstemmed | Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry |
title_short | Decision Conflicts in Clinical Care during COVID-19: A Multi-Perspective Inquiry |
title_sort | decision conflicts in clinical care during covid-19: a multi-perspective inquiry |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9602416/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36292361 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10101914 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT haierjoerg decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT bellerjohannes decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT adorjankristina decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT bleichstefan decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT degreckmoritz decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT griesingerfrank decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT hepptmarkus decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT hurlemannrene decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT meessoerentorge decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT philipsenalexandra decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT rohdegernot decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT schillinggeorgia decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT trautmannkarolin decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT combsstephaniee decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT geyersiegfried decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry AT schaefersjuergen decisionconflictsinclinicalcareduringcovid19amultiperspectiveinquiry |