Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 792

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nurse-physician perspectives on the care of dying patients in intensive care units: Collaboration, moral distress, and ethical climate*

Hamric, Ann B., Blackhall, Leslie J.·2007·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore registered nurses' and attending physicians' perspectives on caring for dying patients in intensive care units (ICUs), with particular attention to the relationships among moral distress, ethical climate, physician/nurse collaboration, and satisfaction with quality of care. DESIGN: Descriptive pilot study using a survey design. SETTING: Fourteen ICUs in two institutions in different regions of Virginia. SUBJECTS: Twenty-nine attending physicians who admitted patients to the ICUs and 196 registered nurses engaged in direct patient care. INTERVENTIONS: Survey questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At the first site, registered nurses reported lower collaboration (p<.001), higher moral distress (p<.001), a more negative ethical environment (p<.001), and less satisfaction with quality of care (p=.005) than did attending physicians. The highest moral distress situations for both registered nurses and physicians involved those situations in which caregivers felt pressured to continue unwarranted aggressive treatment. Nurses perceived distressing situations occurring more frequently than did physicians. At the second site, 45% of the registered nurses surveyed reported having left or considered leaving a position because of moral distress. For physicians, collaboration related to satisfaction with quality of care (p<.001) and ethical environment (p=.004); for nurses, collaboration was related to satisfaction (p<.001) and ethical climate (p<.001) at both sites and negatively related to moral distress at site 2 (p=.05). Overall, registered nurses with higher moral distress scores had lower satisfaction with quality of care (p<.001), lower perception of ethical environment (p<.001), and lower perception of collaboration (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Registered nurses experienced more moral distress and lower collaboration than physicians, they perceived their ethical environment as more negative, and they were less satisfied with the quality of care provided on their units than were physicians. Provider assessments of quality of care were strongly related to perception of collaboration. Improving the ethical climate in ICUs through explicit discussions of moral distress, recognition of differences in nurse/physician values, and improving collaboration may mitigate frustration arising from differences in perspective.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ccm.0000254722.50608.2d

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 792

Metadata

Authors
Hamric, A. B., & Blackhall, L. J.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2007-02
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
422-429
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081395494
Cited by
792
References
2
FWCI
49.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nurse-physician perspectives on the care of dying patients in intensive care units: Collaboration, moral distress, and ethical climate*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000254722.50608.2d
The paper
Hamric, A. B., & Blackhall, L. J. (2007). Nurse-physician perspectives on the care of dying patients in intensive care units: Collaboration, moral distress, and ethical climate*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000254722.50608.2d

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.