Lynn Musto

Today's constrained healthcare environment can make it very difficult for nurses to provide compassionate, competent, and ethical care, and yet their continued commitment to care is viewed as requisite. Nurses' commitment to care of patients, enmeshed with professional identity, may be understood as heroic. A few nursing scholars have advanced the concept of a nurse‐patient covenant to explain or inspire nurses' commitment to care. Covenant describes an enduring relationship characterised by mutual promises and generous responsiveness. However, recent critique has revealed a general misunderstanding and misuse of the term covenant in much of the nursing literature whereby individual nurses are improperly and impossibly idealised as holding sole responsibility in the commitment to care. Such an interpretation obscures society's responsibilities in caring for both patients and nurses and contributes to the idealisation of nurses' commitment to extend themselves to fill in healthcare system gaps. Yet, the concept of a covenant relationship, when reframed as occurring between society and the profession of nursing, may lead us toward solutions to the very problems the originally misused concept sustained. Evidence within healthcare systems globally suggests that nurses' commitments are fragile or fragmented under duress due to increasing pressure, demands, and even risks. A reframing of covenant has the common good for society and nursing at its core and, we argue, may lead to a more sustainable nursing identity. We present the results of an exploratory project, undertaken to examine the utility and suitability of covenant as a relational framework for nursing. We explore a reframing of a covenant of care as a relationship between nursing and society, which may provide a fruitful path toward a sustainable, shared commitment for healthcare. This covenant of care re‐centres shared work—a joint responsibility between society and nursing—as necessary for the common good.

Moral distress is a phenomenon that has been receiving increasing attention in nursing and other health care disciplines. Moral distress is a concept that entered the nursing literature – and subsequently the health care ethics lexicon – in 1984 as a result of the work done by American philosopher and bioethicist Andrew Jameton. Over the past decade, research into moral distress has extended beyond the profession of nursing as other health care disciplines have come to question the impact of moral constraint on individual practitioners, professional practice, and patient outcomes. Along with increased interest in the phenomenon of moral distress have come increasing critiques – critiques that in their essence point to a serious lack of conceptual clarity in the definition, study, and application of the concept. Foundational to gaining conceptual clarity in moral distress in order to develop strategies to prevent and ameliorate the experience is a careful revisiting of the epistemological assumptions underpinning our knowledge and use of the concept of moral distress. It is our contention that the conceptual challenges reveal flaws in the original understanding of moral distress that are based on an epistemological stance that holds a linear conception of cause and effect coupled with a simplistic perspective of ‘constraint’ and ‘agency’. We need a more nuanced approach to our study of moral distress such that our ontological and epistemological stances help us to better appreciate the complexity of moral agents acting in organizational contexts. We believe that critical realism offers such a nuanced approach.

Background: The concept of moral distress has been the subject of nursing research for the past 30 years. Recently, there has been a call to move from developing an understanding of the concept to developing interventions to help ameliorate the experience. At the same time, the use of the term moral distress has been critiqued for a lack of clarity about the concepts that underpin the experience. Discussion: Some researchers suggest that a closer examination of how socio-political structures influence healthcare delivery will move moral distress from being seen as located in the individual to an experience that is also located in broader healthcare structures. Informed by new thinking in relational ethics, we draw on research findings from neuroscience and attachment literature to examine the reciprocal relationship between structures and agents and frame the experience of moral distress. Conclusion: We posit moral distress as a form of relational trauma and subsequently point to the need to better understand how nurses as moral agents are influenced by—and influence—the complex socio-political structures they inhabit. In so doing, we identify this reciprocity as a framework for interventions.