An environmental scan of visitation policies in Canadian intensive care units during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of Visitor Restrictions on the Pain and Psychological Wellbeing of Palliative Care Patients: A Cohort Study

Aim: Palliative care patients with advanced or life-threatening illnesses in hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be affected by visitor restrictions (VR). We aimed to explore the impact of VR on patients' levels of physical pain and psychological distress. Design: Retrospective cohort study comparing two cohorts of patients admitted to a palliative care unit in a major metropolitan hospital in Australia; the first cohort from 1 April to 30 June 2019 (pre-pandemic; n = 96), and the second from 1 April to 30 June 2020 (during pandemic; n = 95). Methods: Patient-rated pain scores (using the Symptom Assessment Scale; SAS) and clinician-rated pain and psychological/spiritual severity scores (using the Palliative Care Problem Severity Score; PCPSS) on admission and on discharge or death were compared between pre-pandemic and pandemic cohorts. Discharge pain scores and change in scores from admission to discharge were also assessed via multivariable analyses. Results: Case-mix of patients in both cohorts were similar. After adjusting for demographics and functional status, pain scores in the pandemic cohort were higher for patients deceased on discharge, compared to the pre-pandemic cohort (SAS: coefficient = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.09 to 1.64, P = 0.029; PCPSS: coefficient = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.07 to 0.86, P = 0.131, respectively). Differences in SAS and PCPSS pain and psychological/spiritual scores for those discharged alive were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Among palliative care inpatients affected by VR, we observed higher pain scores for patients discharged deceased; suggesting that VR may have impacted the physical wellbeing (pain) of these patients.

Experiences of Family Members With Visitation Prohibition for Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

Visitation plays a number of positive roles for critically ill patients and their families. It reduces the physical and mental stress of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and their families and allows family members to participate in patient care. Visit prohibition during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised unprecedented challenges to patients, family members, and health care providers.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of families of patients in the ICU with no-visitor policies due to COVID-19.

METHODS

Data collection was conducted through 8 individual in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted between October 2021 and March 2022. Data analysis was performed following the qualitative method proposed by Colaizzi. The researchers independently analyzed the data, checked the findings, derived subthemes, and categorized them into overarching themes.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) experiencing emotional distress, (b) being fearful of in-person patient contact, (c) being dissatisfied with the access control policy in the ICU, and (d) making efforts to reach the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

It is critical to provide support and develop interventions for families denied visitation with loved ones in ICUs. Since in-person visits are crucial for families, hospitals should establish clear and reasonable visitation guidelines, communicate effectively with families, and offer alternative methods for them to connect with loved ones in the ICU.

Impact of COVID-19-related restricted family presence policies on Canadian pediatric intensive care unit clinicians: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) worldwide restricted family presence in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to explore the experiences and impact of restricted family presence policies on Canadian PICU clinicians.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study that followed an interpretive phenomenological design. Participants were PICU clinicians providing direct patient care in Canada during periods of COVID-19-related restricted family presence. We purposively sampled for maximum variation among survey participants who consented to be contacted for further research on the same topic. In-depth interviews were conducted remotely via telephone or video-call, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Interviews were inductively coded and underwent thematic analysis. Proposed themes were member-checked by interviewees.

RESULTS

Sixteen PICU clinicians completed interviews. Interviewees practiced across Canada, represented a range of disciplines (eight nurses, two physicians, two respiratory therapists, two child life specialists, two social workers) and years in profession (0-34 years). We identified four themes representing the most meaningful aspects of restricted family presence for participants: 1) balancing infection control and family presence; 2) feeling disempowered by hospital and policy-making hierarchies; 3) empathizing with family trauma; and 4) navigating threats to the therapeutic relationship.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric intensive care unit clinicians were impacted by restricted family presence policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. These policies contributed to feelings of disempowerment and challenged clinicians' perceived ability to provide the best family-centred care possible. Frontline expertise should be incorporated into the design and implementation of policies to best support family-centred care in any context and minimize risks of moral distress for PICU clinicians.

Conducting Goals of Care Conversations: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: Internal medicine (IM) residents discuss a patient's goals of care (GOC) as part of their initial consultation. Residents have described inexperience, general discomfort, limited formal teaching, and prognostic uncertainty as barriers to effective GOC conversations. The early COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid changes to the healthcare system on the individual, patient, and systemic level that might exacerbate and/or introduce new barriers to IM residents' GOC conversations. This qualitative study examines how the early COVID-19 pandemic challenged IM residents' ability to have effective GOC conversations. Methods: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, participants (n=11) completed a semi-structured interview. Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously using an open coding, constant comparison process. Interviews were completed until no new themes were identified. Results: Residents self-described their GOC conversations in 5 steps: normalization of the conversation, introduction of expected clinical course, discussion of possible care plans, exploration of the patient's values, and occasionally providing a recommendation. Residents described limited structured teaching around GOC conversations and instead relied on observed role-modelling and self-practice to hone their skillset. Residents described an increased sense of urgency to have GOC conversations due to the uncertainty of clinical course and potential for rapid deterioration of patients with COVID-19. Residents identified restrictive visitor policies as a significant barrier that contributed to feelings of dehumanization. Residents felt that these limitations affected their GOC conversations and potentially resulted in discordant care plans which contributed to moral distress. Conclusion: The early COVID-19 pandemic resulted in several barriers that challenged residents' ability to conduct effective GOC conversations. This is on the background of previously reported discomfort and limited formal training in conducting GOC conversations. Based on our findings, we present a conceptual model involving teaching validated GOC frameworks, positive role-modelling, and experiential learning to support GOC conversation education in post-graduate medical education.

"You want them to be partners in therapy, but that's tricky when they're not there": A qualitative study exploring caregiver involvement across the continuum of care during the early COVID pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Widespread visitor restrictions were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic at acute and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. Family caregivers were physically isolated from their loved ones, which challenged engagement in patient care and readiness for their role. Thus, we aimed to explore the involvement of family caregivers in COVID-19 patients as they journeyed across the care continuum during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

We employed a qualitative descriptive approach.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted interviews with family caregivers, COVID-19 patients, and healthcare providers between August 2020 and February 2021.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from a single hospital network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 27 participants were interviewed-12 healthcare providers, 10 patients, and 5 family caregivers. Four themes were identified: (a) Caregivers were shut out in acute COVID care, (b) Patient discharge from inpatient rehabilitation was turbulent for caregivers, (c) Caregivers were unprepared to support loved ones in the community, and (d) Patient discharge to home was heavily dependent on caregiver availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Visitor restrictions prevent family caregivers from being physically present at patients' bedside, leading to complex and detrimental impacts such as caregivers feeling that they were not engaged in their loved one's care planning until they were discharged. In turn, discharge to the community was met with several challenges including caregivers feeling underprepared and unsupported to meet their loved one's unique care requirements. This was exacerbated by a lack of community-based resources due to ongoing pandemic restrictions.

"We Aren't Meant to Go Through the Hardest Parts of Our Lives Alone": Family Experience With Restricted PICU Presence During the COVID-19 Pandemic

CONTEXT

PICUs across Canada restricted family presence (RFP) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic from allowing two or more family members to often only one family member at the bedside. The objective of this study was to describe the experiences and impact of RFP on families of critically ill children to inform future policy and practice.

HYPOTHESIS

RFP policies negatively impacted families of PICU patients and caused moral distress.

METHODS AND MODELS

National, cross-sectional, online, self-administered survey. Family members of children admitted to a Canadian PICU between March 2020 and February 2021 were invited to complete the survey. RFP-attributable distress was measured with a modified distress thermometer (0-10). Closed-ended questions were reported with descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression assessed factors associated with RFP-attributable distress. Open-ended questions were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Of 250 respondents who experienced RFP, 124 (49.6%) were restricted to one family member at the bedside. The median amount of distress that families attributed to RFP policies was 6 (range: 0-10). Families described isolation, removal of supports, and perception of trauma related to RFP. Most families (183, 73.2%) felt that policies were enforced in a way that made them feel valued by PICU clinicians, which was associated with less RFP-attributable distress. Differential impact was seen where families with lower household income indicated higher RFP-attributable distress score (2.35; 95% CI, 0.53-4.17; p = 0.03). Most respondents suggested that future policies should allow at least two family members at the bedside.

INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Families of children admitted to PICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic described increased distress, trauma, and removal of supports due to RFP policies. Vulnerable families showed an increased odds of higher distress. Healthcare professionals played an important role in mitigating distress. Allowance of at least two family members at the bedside should be considered for future policy.

An integrated review: connecting Covid-era hospital visiting policies to family engagement

Introduction

Family engagement and patient-family-centered care are vitally important to improve outcomes for patients, families, providers, hospitals, and communities. Both constructs prioritize providers forming partnerships with patients and their families. The domains of family-engaged care include presence, communication, shared-decision making, family needs, contribution to care, and collaboration at the institutional level. This integrative review describes the extent to which the domains of family engagement are present in the literature about Covid-era hospital visiting policies.

Methods

A search of four databases resulted in 127 articles and one added through data mining. After review, 28 articles were synthesized and analyzed into an integrative review of family engagement in the hospital with Covid-era visiting policies as the backdrop.

Results

The 28-article review resulted in an international, multidisciplinary perspective of diverse study designs. The review's sample population includes 6,984 patients, 1,126 family members, 1,174 providers, 96 hospitals, 50 health centers, 1 unit, and 257 documents. While all the domains are represented, presence is the prevailing domain, identified in 25 out of the 28 (89%).

Discussion

Presence is recognized as facilitating the other domains. Because the concept of collaboration is largely absent in the literature, it may provide healthcare institutions with a growth opportunity to facilitate and promote family engagement. This review is the first step in operationalizing family engagement in the hospital setting, especially when presence is challenging.

Observational study of organisational responses of 17 US hospitals over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has required significant modifications of hospital care. The objective of this study was to examine the operational approaches taken by US hospitals over time in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a prospective observational study of 17 geographically diverse US hospitals from February 2020 to February 2021.

OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS

We identified 42 potential pandemic-related strategies and obtained week-to-week data about their use. We calculated descriptive statistics for use of each strategy and plotted percent uptake and weeks used. We assessed the relationship between strategy use and hospital type, geographic region and phase of the pandemic using generalised estimating equations (GEEs), adjusting for weekly county case counts.

RESULTS

We found heterogeneity in strategy uptake over time, some of which was associated with geographic region and phase of pandemic. We identified a body of strategies that were both commonly used and sustained over time, for example, limiting staff in COVID-19 rooms and increasing telehealth capacity, as well as those that were rarely used and/or not sustained, for example, increasing hospital bed capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in resource intensity, uptake and duration of use. Such information may be valuable to health systems during the ongoing pandemic and future ones.

From Open to Closed: COVID-19 Restrictions on Previously Unrestricted Visitation Policies in Adult Intensive Care Units

BACKGROUND

In March 2020, rising numbers of COVID-19 infections contributed to changes in intensive care unit visitation policies, with some facilities allowing no visitors.

OBJECTIVE

To compare visitation policies of Magnet and Pathway to Excellence hospitals with prepandemic open visitation in adult intensive care units.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was conducted from January through March 2021. Quantitative data on visitation policies were extracted from websites of 96 Magnet and Pathway to Excellence hospitals that had allowed unrestricted visits in adult intensive care units before the pandemic. Qualitative data were collected via semistructured interviews with 9 nurse leaders from these hospitals.

RESULTS

More than 1 year after the start of the pandemic, all of the hospitals had instituted restricted visitation policies. The policies varied, with little to no evidence-based justification. Restrictions included 83% of hospitals (n = 80) allowing just 1 visitor per day and 69% of hospitals (n = 50 of 72) allowing no visits at all for patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit. Five themes were found when nurse leaders' interviews were analyzed: visitors not welcome, doing harm, external decisions at system level, visiting within limits, and changes in critical care nursing work.

CONCLUSION

Results of the study suggest that despite the vast amount of evidence supporting the benefits of visitation and the harms of restricted visitation and expert recommendations for returning safe visitation to hospitals, Magnet and Pathway to Excellence hospitals continue to enforce restricted visitation policies in intensive care units. Patients, families, and nursing and health care staff must partner to create pandemic-proof visitation policies.

Family caregivers' responses to a visitation restriction policy at a Korean surgical intensive care unit before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, restricting family visits in the ICU has increased concerns regarding negative psychosocial consequences to patients and families.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the quality of life, depressive symptoms, and emotions in family caregivers of ICU patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore families' perceptions and suggestions for the visitation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted in 99 family caregivers of adult surgical ICU patients from an urban academic medical center in South Korea (February to July 2021). The WHO's Quality of Life-BREF, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression, and Visual Analogue Scale were used to assess quality of life, depressive symptoms, and emotions, respectively. The Family Perception Checklist was used to assess families' perceptions and suggestions about the visitation restriction. Results were compared with the data from our previous survey (n = 187) in 2017.

RESULTS

Family caregivers were mostly women (n = 59), adult children (n = 43) or spouse (n = 38) of patients with mean age of 47.34 years. Family caregivers surveyed during the pandemic reported worsening sadness (54.66 ± 28.93, 45.58 ± 29.44, P = 0.005) and anxiety (53.86 ± 30.07, 43.22 ± 29.02, P = 0.001) than those who were surveyed in. While majority of families were satisfied with the visitation restrictions (86.9%), only 50.5% were satisfied with the amount of information provided on the patient's condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Visitation restriction is necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic despite sadness and anxiety reported in caregivers. Hence, alternative visitation strategies are needed to mitigate psychological distress and provide sufficient information to ICU family caregivers.

Impact of restricted visitation policies during COVID-19 on critically ill adults, their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers: a qualitative interview study

PURPOSE

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, restricted visitation policies were enacted at acute care facilities to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and conserve personal protective equipment. In this study, we aimed to describe the impact of restricted visitation policies on critically ill patients, families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers; highlight the challenges faced in translating these policies into practice; and delineate strategies to mitigate their effects.

METHOD

A qualitative description design was used. We conducted semistructured interviews with critically ill adult patients and their family members, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers (i.e., policy makers or enforcers) affected by restricted visitation policies. We transcribed semistructured interviews verbatim and analyzed the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three patients, eight family members, 30 clinicians (13 physicians, 17 nurses from 23 Canadian intensive care units [ICUs]), and three decision-makers participated in interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify five themes: 1) acceptance of restricted visitation (e.g., accepting with concerns); 2) impact of restricted visitation (e.g., ethical challenges, moral distress, patients dying alone, intensified workload); 3) trust in the healthcare system during the pandemic (e.g., mistrust of clinical team); 4) modes of communication (e.g., communication using virtual platforms); and 5) impact of policy implementation on clinical practice (e.g., frequent changes and inconsistent implementation).

CONCLUSIONS

Restricted visitation policies across ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected critically ill patients and their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers.

Advancing rapid adaptation for urgent public health crises: Using implementation science to facilitate effective and efficient responses

Responding rapidly to emerging public health crises is vital to reducing their escalation, spread, and impact on population health. These responses, however, are challenging and disparate processes for researchers and practitioners. Researchers often develop new interventions that take significant time and resources, with little exportability. In contrast, community-serving systems are often poorly equipped to properly adopt new interventions or adapt existing ones in a data-driven way during crises' onset and escalation. This results in significant delays in deploying evidence-based interventions (EBIs) with notable public health consequences. This prolonged timeline for EBI development and implementation results in significant morbidity and mortality that is costly and preventable. As public health emergencies have demonstrated (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), the negative consequences often exacerbate existing health disparities. Implementation science has the potential to bridge the extant gap between research and practice, and enhance equity in rapid public health responses, but is underutilized. For the field to have a greater "real-world" impact, it needs to be more rapid, iterative, participatory, and work within the timeframes of community-serving systems. This paper focuses on rapid adaptation as a developing implementation science area to facilitate system responses during public health crises. We highlight frameworks to guide rapid adaptation for optimizing existing EBIs when responding to urgent public health issues. We also explore the economic implications of rapid adaptation. Resource limitations are frequently a central reason for implementation failure; thus, we consider the economic impacts of rapid adaptation. Finally, we provide examples and propose directions for future research and application.

Psychological distress and morbidity of family members experiencing virtual visiting in intensive care during COVID-19: an observational cohort study

Purpose

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, intensive care units (ICUs) around the world introduced virtual visiting to mediate the psychological impact of in-person visiting restrictions. Our objective was to evaluate levels of distress, depression, anxiety, and stress among family members experiencing virtual visits.

Methods

Multi-centre prospective observational study recruiting adult family members of critically ill patients in the United Kingdom (UK) using a bespoke virtual visiting solution (aTouchAway). We recruited participants and administered validated questionnaires digitally via their aTouchAway account. Prior to first virtual visit, participants completed the Distress Thermometer (score range 0–10) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS)-21. Following first and subsequent virtual visits, participants repeated the Distress Thermometer and completed the Discrete Emotions Questionnaire.

Results

We recruited 2166 adult family members of ICU patients in 37 UK hospitals. Most were grown up children (33%) or spouses/partners (23%). Most (91%) were ≤ 65 years. Mean (SD) pre-virtual-visit Distress Thermometer score was 7 (2.6) with 1349/2153 (62%) reporting severe distress. Pre-visit Distress Thermometer scores were associated with relationship type (spouse/partner OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27–2.12) but not family member age, or length of ICU stay. Mean (SD) post-visit Distress Thermometer score provided by 762 (35%) participants was 1.6 (3.2) points lower than pre-visit (P < 0.001). Of participants experiencing multiple visits, 22% continued to report severe distress. Median (IQR) pre-visit DASS-21 score was 18 (2–42) (1754 participants). Severe-to-extremely severe depression, anxiety, or stress were reported by 249 (14%), 321 (18%), and 165 (9%) participants, respectively. Participants reported a range of emotions with reassurance being the most common, anger being the least.

Conclusion

Family members exposed to COVID-19 pandemic ICU visiting restrictions experienced severe distress. One fifth of family members reported severe-to-extremely sever anxiety or depression. Distress score magnitude and prevalence of severe distress decreased after undertaking one or more virtual visits.

Infection prevention and control across the continuum of COVID-19 care: A qualitative study of patients', caregivers' and providers' experiences

Introduction

Healthcare facilities adopted restrictive visitor policies as a result of the COVID‐19 (COVID) pandemic. Though these measures were necessary to promote the safety of patients, families and healthcare providers, it led to isolation and loneliness amongst acute care inpatients that can undermine patient rehabilitation and recovery. The study objectives were to (1) explore how infection prevention and control (IP&C) measures impacted stakeholders' perceptions of care quality and interactions with others and (2) investigate how these experiences and perceptions varied across stakeholder groups and care settings.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. Patients and their families from an inpatient COVID rehabilitation hospital and healthcare providers from an acute or rehabilitation COVID hospital were interviewed between August 2020 and February 2021.

Results

A total of 10 patients, 5 family members and 12 healthcare providers were interviewed. Four major themes were identified: (1) IP&C measures challenged the psychosocial health of all stakeholders across care settings; (2): IP&C measures precipitated a need for greater relational care from HCPs; (3) infection prevention tenets perpetuated COVID‐related stigma that stakeholders experienced across care settings; and (4) technology was used to facilitate human connection when IP&C limited physical presence.

Conclusion

IP&C measures challenged psychosocial health and maintenance of vital human connections. Loneliness and isolation were felt by all stakeholders due to physical distancing and COVID‐related stigma. Some isolation was mitigated by the relational care provided by HCPs and technological innovations used. The findings of the study underscore the need to balance safety with psychosocial well‐being across care settings and beyond the patient–provider dyad.

Patient and Public Contribution

This study was informed by the Patient‐Oriented Research Agenda and developed through consultations with patients and family caregivers to identify priority areas for rehabilitation research. Priority areas identified that informed the current study were (1) the need to focus on the psychosocial aspects of recovery from illness and injury and (2) the importance of exploring patients' recovery experiences and needs across the continuum of care. The study protocol, ethics submission, analysis and manuscript preparation were all informed by healthcare providers with lived experience of working in COVID care settings.

Infection control strategies for patients and accompanying persons during the COVID-19 pandemic in German hospitals: a cross-sectional study in March-April 2021

BACKGROUND

Patients are at risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection. The role of accompanying persons/visitors as potential infection donors is not yet well researched, but the risk will be influenced by prevention measures recommended by infection control practitioners.

AIM

To collect information about COVID-19 infection control strategies for patients and accompanying persons from infection control practitioners in German hospitals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional questionnaire was developed, ethically approved, pre-tested and formatted as an online tool. Infection control practitioners in 987 randomly selected German hospitals were invited to participate in March and April 2021. For statistical analysis, the hospitals were categorized as small (0-499 beds) or large (≥500 beds).

FINDINGS

One hundred surveys were completed (response rate: 10%). A higher proportion of large (71%) than small (49%) hospitals let patients decide freely whether to wear medical or FFP2 masks. Most hospitals reported spatial separation for COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 cases (38%) or additionally for suspected COVID-19 cases (53%). A separation of healthcare teams for these areas existed in 54% of the hospitals. Accompaniment bans were more prevalent in large (52%) than in small hospitals (29%), but large hospitals granted more exemptions.

CONCLUSION

The decision as to whether to separate areas and teams seemed to depend on the hospital's structural conditions, therefore impairing the implementation of recommendations. Accompaniment regulations differ between hospital sizes and may depend on patient numbers, case type/severity and patients' requirements. In the dynamic situation of a pandemic, it can be difficult to stay up to date with findings and recommendations on infection control.

Evidence-informed consensus statements to guide COVID-19 patient visitation policies: results from a national stakeholder meeting

PURPOSE

Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs.

METHODS

We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies.

RESULTS

Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

Family presence in Canadian PICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods environmental scan of policy and practice

BACKGROUND

Despite their broad commitment to family-centred care, children's hospitals and associated pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) restricted family presence during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to describe family presence policies and practices in Canadian PICUs from March to May 2020, and their evolution by August to December 2020.

METHODS

We conducted an environmental scan of family presence policies and restrictions in all 19 Canadian PICUs using 2 methods. We conducted a literature review of public-facing visitation policy documents in June 2020 using a standardized data extraction form. We also administered a cross-sectional survey of PICU leadership (managers and physician chiefs) between August and December 2020 by telephone or videoconferencing. We used inductive content analysis to code qualitative data, generating summative count data. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively.

RESULTS

As part of the literature search, we collected 2 (12%) PICU-specific, 14 (82%) pediatric-specific and 1 (6%) hospital-wide visitation policy documents from the early pandemic. One policy document provided guidance on all of the policy elements sought; the number of enabled caregivers was not included in the documents for 7 of 19 units (37%). All 19 Canadian PICUs were represented among the 24 survey respondents (15 physician chiefs and 9 operations or clinical managers). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, all units allowed the presence of 2 or more family members. Early in the pandemic, reported practices limited the number of adult caregivers for patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection to 1 (n = 21/24, 88%) or 2 (n = 3/24, 12%); all units prohibited siblings. Some centres restricted caregivers from switching bedside presence with one another (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 16/23, 70%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 20/23, 87%); leaving their child's PICU room (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 1/24, 4%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 16/24, 67%); and joining in-person rounds (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 9/22, 41%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 17/22, 77%). All respondents endorsed policy exceptions during end-of-life care. Some reported policies and practices were adapted over the study period.

INTERPRETATION

Early COVID-19-related family presence policies in Canadian PICUs varied among centres. Although some centres adapted policies and practices, this study revealed ongoing potential threats to family centred care at the mid-pandemic stage.

Comparative end-of-life communication and support in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective regional cohort study in Ottawa, Canada

OBJECTIVE

To compare end-of-life in-person family presence, patient-family communication and healthcare team-family communication encounters in hospitalised decedents before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

In a regional multicentre retrospective cohort study, electronic health record data were abstracted for a prepandemic group (pre-COVID) and two intrapandemic (March-August 2020, wave 1) groups, one COVID-19 free (COVID-ve) and one with COVID-19 infection (COVID+ve). Pre-COVID and COVID-ve groups were matched 2:1 (age, sex and care service) with the COVID+ve group.

SETTING

One quaternary and two tertiary adult, acute care hospitals in Ottawa, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Decedents (n=425): COVID+ve (n=85), COVID-ve (n=170) and pre-COVID (n=170).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

End-of-life (last 48 hours) in-person family presence and virtual (video) patient-family communication, and end-of-life (last 5 days) virtual team-family communication encounter occurrences were examined using logistic regression with ORs and 95% CIs. End-of-life (last 5 days) rates of in-person and telephone team-family communication encounters were examined using mixed-effects negative binomial models with incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

End-of-life in-person family presence decreased progressively across pre-COVID (90.6%), COVID-ve (79.4%) and COVID+ve (47.1%) groups: adjusted ORs=0.38 (0.2-0.73) and 0.09 (0.04-0.17) for COVID-ve and COVID+ve groups, respectively. COVID-ve and COVID+ve groups had reduced in-person but increased telephone team-family communication encounters: IRRs=0.76 (0.64-0.9) and 0.61 (0.47-0.79) for in-person, and IRRs=2.6 (2.1-3.3) and 4.8 (3.7-6.1) for telephone communications, respectively. Virtual team-family communication encounters occurred in 17/85 (20%) and 10/170 (5.9%) of the COVID+ve and COVID-ve groups, respectively: adjusted OR=3.68 (1.51-8.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised COVID-19 pandemic wave 1 decedents, in-person family presence and in-person team-family communication encounters decreased at end of life, particularly in the COVID+ve group; virtual modalities were adopted for communication, and telephone use increased in team-family communication encounters. The implications of these communication changes for the patient, family and healthcare team warrant further study.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Rates of Ninety-Day Peri-Prosthetic Joint and Surgical Site Infections after Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study

Background: The impact of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the rate of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and superficial surgical site infections (SSI) is currently unknown. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate any changes in the rates of 90-day PJI or 30-day SSI, including trends in microbiology of the infections, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the three years prior. Patients and Methods: An Institutional Review Board-approved, multicenter, retrospective study was conducted with five participating academic institutions across two healthcare systems in the northeastern United States. Primary TJA patients from the years 2017-2019 were grouped as a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort and patients from the year 2020 were grouped as a COVID-19 pandemic cohort. Differences in patient demographics, PJI, SSI, and microbiology between the two cohorts were assessed. Results: A total of 14,844 TJAs in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort and 5,453 TJAs in the COVID-19 pandemic cohort were evaluated. There were no substantial differences of the combined 90-day PJI and 30-day superficial SSI rates between the pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (0.35%) compared with the COVID-19 pandemic cohort (0.26%; p = 0.303). Conclusions: This study did not find any change in the rates of 90-day PJI or 30-day superficial SSI in patients undergoing primary TJA between a pre-COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 pandemic cohort. Larger national database studies may identify small but substantial differences in 90-day PJI and 30-day superficial SSI rates between these two time periods. Our data may support continued efforts to maintain high compliance with hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment, and limited hospital visitation whenever possible.

Family perspectives on facilitators and barriers to the set up and conduct of virtual visiting in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

The effect of short music videos on needs satisfaction and separation anxiety of children's family members during COVID-19: The example of TikTok

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of short music videos on needs satisfaction and separation anxiety of the family members of children with congenital heart disease (CHD) in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Eighty-seven children's family members were divided into the study group and the control group between February 2020 and March 2021. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the participants in the control group were visited by telephone, while the participants in the study group used the TikTok short music video application and WeChat as communication tools. After the intervention, the critical care family needs inventory (CCFNI) and separation anxiety scale (SAS) for all participants were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in general characteristics or preintervention data between the two groups. However, the two dimensions of the support scale and information scale of the CCFNI in the study group were significantly different from those in the control group after the intervention (P = 0.008, and P = 0.021, respectively). There were significant differences in the three dimensions of the SAS between the two groups (P = 0.004, P = 0.007, and P = 0.041, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The visiting system of the ICU changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the use of the TikTok short music video application and WeChat was conducive to optimizing the CICU ward visiting process, reducing the separation anxiety of the family members of children in the CICU, and improving their needs satisfaction.

A Modified Delphi Process to Prioritize Experiences and Guidance Related to ICU Restricted Visitation Policies During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

To create evidence-based consensus statements for restricted ICU visitation policies to support critically ill patients, families, and healthcare professionals during current and future pandemics.

DESIGN

Three rounds of a remote modified Delphi consensus process.

SETTING

Online survey and virtual polling from February 2, 2021, to April 8, 2021.

SUBJECTS

Stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, decision-makers) admitted to or working in Canadian ICUs during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During Round 1, key stakeholders used a 9-point Likert scale to rate experiences (1-not significant, 9-significant impact on patients, families, healthcare professionals, or patient- and family-centered care) and strategies (1-not essential, 9-essential recommendation for inclusion in the development of restricted visitation policies) and used a free-text box to capture experiences/strategies we may have missed. Consensus was achieved if the median score was 7-9 or 1-3. During Round 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale to re-rate experiences/strategies that did not meet consensus during Round 1 (median score of 4-6) and rate new items identified in Round 1. During Rounds 2 and 3, participants ranked items that reached consensus by order of importance (relative to other related items and experiences) using a weighted ranking system (0-100 points). Participants prioritized 11 experiences (e.g., variability of family's comfort with technology, healthcare professional moral distress) and developed 21 consensus statements (e.g., communicate policy changes to the hospital staff before the public, permit visitors at end-of-life regardless of coronavirus disease 2019 status, creating a clear definition for end-of-life) regarding restricted visitation policies.

CONCLUSIONS

We have formulated evidence-informed consensus statements regarding restricted visitation policies informed by diverse stakeholders, which could enhance patient- and family-centered care during a pandemic.