Cited by 51Ethics in medical practicePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic Care

Experiences of staff providing specialist palliative care during COVID-19: a multiple qualitative case study

Open access
Bradshaw, Andy, Dunleavy, Lesley, Garner, Ian, Preston, Nancy, Bajwah, Sabrina, Cripps, Rachel, Fraser, Lorna K, Maddocks, Matthew +6 more·2022·Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Summary Objective: To explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Qualitative multiple case study using semi-structured interviews between November 2020 and April 2021 as part of the CovPall study. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Setting: Organisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting. Participants: Staff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience. Main outcome measures: Experiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Five cases and 24 participants were recruited (n = 12 nurses, 4 clinical managers, 4 doctors, 2 senior managers, 1 healthcare assistant, 1 allied healthcare professional). Central themes demonstrate how infection control constraints prohibited and diluted participants’ ability to provide care that reflected their core values, resulting in experiences of moral distress. Despite organisational, team and individual support strategies, continually managing these constraints led to a ‘crescendo effect’ in which the impacts of moral distress accumulated over time, sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and making a valued contribution provided ‘moral comfort’ for some. Conclusions: This study provides a unique insight into why and how healthcare staff have experienced moral distress during the pandemic, and how organisations have responded. Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the mental health and well-being of palliative care staff was affected by the pandemic. Organisational, structural and policy changes are urgently required to mitigate and manage these impacts.

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 · 10.1177/01410768221077366

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]Yin RK. Case study research and applications: design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bradshaw, A., Dunleavy, L., Garner, I., Preston, N., Bajwah, S., Cripps, R., Fraser, L. K., Maddocks, M., Hocaoglu, M., Murtagh, F. E., Oluyase, A. O., Sleeman, K. E., Higginson, I. J., & Walshe, C.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King’s College London, SE5 9PJ, UK
  • University of Hull (GB)
Corresponding author
Bradshaw, Andy
Venue
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Published
2022-02-08
Volume
115
Issue
6
Pages
220-230
ISSN
  • 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1095
OpenAlex
W4226033045
Cited by
51
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 4
FWCI
14.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (acceptedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CDF-2017-10-009, PDF-2011-04-048, CL-2010-17-009, CDF-2018-11-ST2-002, CS-2015-15-005, NF-SI-0611-10209, NIHR201354)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • King's College London
  • Medical Research Council (CS-2015-15-005, MR/V012908/1)
  • National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South London
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
specialist palliative care, COVID-19 pandemic, moral distress, burnout, workplace mental health, organizational support, healthcare workers' experiences
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Health Personnel, Humans, Palliative Care, Qualitative Research, Pandemics

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