Search

Aim: To refine the Rushton Moral Resilience Scale (RMRS) by creating a more concise scale, improving the reliability, particularly of the personal integrity subscale and providing further evidence of validity. Background: Healthcare workers are exposed to moral adversity in practice. When unable to preserve/restore their integrity, moral suffering ensues. Moral resilience is a resource that may mitigate negative consequences. To better understand mechanisms for doing so, a valid and reliable measurement tool is necessary. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: Participants (N = 1297) had completed ≥1 items on the RMRS as part of the baseline survey of a larger longitudinal study. Item analysis, confirmatory factor analyses, reliability analyses (Cronbach's alpha), and correlations were used to establish reliability and validity of the revised RMRS. Results: Item and confirmatory factor analysis were used to refine the RMRS from 21 to 16 items. The four-factor structure (responses to moral adversity, personal integrity, relational integrity and moral efficacy) demonstrated adequate fit in follow-up confirmatory analyses in the initial and hold-out sub-samples. All subscales and the total scale had adequate reliabilities (α ≥ 0.70). A higher-order factor analysis supports the computation of either subscale scores or a total scale score. Correlations of scores with stress, anxiety, depression and moral distress provide evidence of the scale's validity. Reliability of the personal integrity subscale improved. Conclusion and Implications: The RMRS-16 demonstrates adequate reliability and validity, particularly the personal integrity subscale. Moral resilience is an important lever for reducing consequences when confronted with ethical challenges in practice. Improved reliability of the four subscales and having a shorter overall scale allow for targeted application and will facilitate further research and intervention development. Patient/Public Contribution: Data came from a larger study of Canadian healthcare workers from multiple healthcare organizations who completed a survey about their experiences during COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Burnout is a growing concern, with significant negative consequences for physicians and patient care. Burnout is negatively associated with physician empathy, while resilience may be a protective factor against the development of burnout but few studies have examined all three constructs in the same cohort. Understanding the associations between these constructs could aid in the development of interventions for physicians experiencing burnout and improve the delivery of compassionate care. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to determine levels of burnout, empathy and resilience in a sample of academic physicians and investigate the relationships between these variables. Validated scales were administered online to measure burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory – Human Services Survey, MBI-HSS), empathy (Jefferson Scale of Empathy – Physicians/Health Professions Version, JSE) and resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, CD-RISC). Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients, and group comparisons were examined. Eighty-three physicians completed the JSE and CD-RISC, while a subset of 49 physicians also completed the MBI-HSS. Response rates were 31.9% and 18.8%, respectively. High burnout was reported by 49% of the sample. Physicians with high burnout reported lower levels of resilience than those who were not burnt-out. No differences in levels of empathy were observed between these two groups. Older physicians (>45 years) reported higher resilience scores than younger physicians. Resilience and empathy were significantly positively correlated. The reported rate of physician burnout in this sample of academic physicians is concerning, with burnout associated with lower levels of resilience. Further research is required to explore the relationship between physician age and resilience, the impact of resilience-building interventions on burnout and empathy in physicians, and how modifying these variables influences the delivery of compassionate care for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]