Variation in communication and family visiting policies in intensive care within and between countries during the Covid-19 pandemic: The COVISIT international survey

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICU) introduced restrictions to in-person family visiting to safeguard patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based survey (March-July 2021) investigating ICU visiting practices before the pandemic, at peak COVID-19 ICU admissions, and at the time of survey response. We sought data on visiting policies and communication modes including use of virtual visiting (videoconferencing).

RESULTS

We obtained 667 valid responses representing ICUs in all continents. Before the pandemic, 20% (106/525) had unrestricted visiting hours; 6% (30/525) did not allow in-person visiting. At peak, 84% (558/667) did not allow in-person visiting for patients with COVID-19; 66% for patients without COVID-19. This proportion had decreased to 55% (369/667) at time of survey reporting. A government mandate to restrict hospital visiting was reported by 53% (354/646). Most ICUs (55%, 353/615) used regular telephone updates; 50% (306/667) used telephone for formal meetings and discussions regarding prognosis or end-of-life. Virtual visiting was available in 63% (418/667) at time of survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly restrictive visiting policies were introduced at the initial pandemic peaks, were subsequently liberalized, but without returning to pre-pandemic practices. Telephone became the primary communication mode in most ICUs, supplemented with virtual visits.

Estimating the rapid haemodynamic effects of passive leg raising in critically ill patients using bioreactance

BACKGROUND

Rapid detection of changes in cardiac index (CI) in real time using minimally invasive monitors may be of clinical benefit. We tested whether the Starling-SV bioreactance device, which averages CI over a short 8 s period, could assess the effects of passive leg raising (PLR), a clinical test that is recommended to assess fluid responsiveness during septic shock.

METHODS

In 32 critically ill patients, we measured CI by transpulmonary thermodilution (PiCCO2, CI_td), pulse contour analysis (PiCCO2, CI_Pulse), and the Starling-SV device (CI_Starling) at baseline. CI_Pulse and CI_Starling were measured again at the end of a PLR test. In the 13 patients with a positive PLR test, CI_td, CI_Pulse, and CI_Starling were measured before and after a 500 ml saline infusion. The primary outcome was relative changes from baseline measurements in CI_td, CI_Pulse, and CI_Starling. Secondary outcomes compared absolute values measured by each method.

RESULTS

Relative changes in CI_Pulse and CI_td were significantly correlated (r=0.82; n=45; P<0.001), with an 89% concordance rate (n=45 paired measurements). Relative changes in CI_Starling and CI_td were also significantly correlated (r=0.59; n=45; P<0.001) with a 78% concordance rate. For absolute measures of CI (n=77 paired measurements), the bias between CI_Pulse and CI_td was 0.01 L min^-1 m^-2 (limits of agreement, -0.49 and 0.51 L min^-1 m^-2; 15% percentage error). Bias between CI_Starling and CI_td was 0.03 L min^-1 m^-2 (limits of agreement, -1.61 and 1.67 L min^-1 m^-2; 48% percentage error).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients, a non-invasive bioreactance device with a shorter averaging period assessed a passive leg raising test with reasonable accuracy.