Changes to Visitation Policies and Communication Practices in Michigan ICUs during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Valley TS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7491388 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Changes to Visitation Policies and Communication Practices in Michigan ICUs during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Valley Thomas S TS Schutz Amanda A Nagle Max T MT Miles Lewis J LJ Lipman Kyra K Ketcham Scott W SW Kent Madison M Hibbard Clarice E CE Harlan Emily A EA Hauschildt Katrina K
American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 20200901 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundInpatient health care facilities restricted inpatient visitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no existing evidence of how they communicated these policies to the public nor the impact of their communication choices on public perception.ObjectiveThis study aims to describe patterns of inpatient visitation policies during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and the communication of these policies to the general public, as well as to identify communication strategies that maximize positive impressions of the facility despite visitation restrictions.MethodsWe conducted a sequential, exploratory, mixed methods study including a qualitative analysis of COVID-19 era visitation policies published on Pennsylvania-based facility websites, as captured between April 30 and May 20, 2020 (ie, during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States). We also conducted a factorial survey-based experiment to test how key elements of hospitals' visitation policy communication are associated with individuals' willingness to seek care in October 2020. For analysis of the policies, we included all inpatient facilities in Pennsylvania. For the factorial experiment, US adults were drawn from internet research panels. The factorial survey-based experiment presented composite policies that varied in their justification for restricted visitation, the degree to which the facility expressed ownership of the policy, and the inclusion of family-centered care support plans. Our primary outcome was participants' willingness to recommend the hypothetical facility using a 5-point Likert scale.ResultsWe identified 104 unique policies on inpatient visitation from 363 facilities' websites. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the policies was 14.2. Most policies prohibited family presence (99/104, 95.2%). Facilities justified the restricted visitation policies on the basis of community protection (59/104, 56.7%), authorities' guidance or regulations (34/104, 32.7%), or scientific rationale (23/104, 22.1%). A minority (38/104, 36.5%) addressed how restrictive visitation may impair family-centered care. Most of the policies analyzed used passive voice to communicate restrictions. A total of 1321 participants completed the web-based survey. Visitation policy elements significantly associated with willingness to recommend the facility included justifications based on community protection (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.24-1.68) or scientific rationale (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51), rather than those based on a governing authority. The facility expressed a high degree of ownership over the decision (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29), rather than a low degree of ownership; and inclusion of family-centered care support plans (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.51-3.12), rather than no such support.ConclusionsHealth systems can immediately improve public receptiveness of restrictive visitation policies by emphasizing community protection, ownership over the facility's policy, and promoting family-centered care.
| S-EPMC8477908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo ascertain parental perceptions of the impact of restricted visiting policies to neonatal intensive care units during the current COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCross-sectional survey of parents impacted by visitation policies.SettingSix tertiary level neonatal units, four from the UK and two from the USA, participated in the study.ParticipantsParents and families of infants hospitalised in the participating centres between 1 May 2020 and 21 August 2020.MethodsOnline-based and/or paper-based survey, querying the visitation policies and their impact on parents' ability to visit, care for and bond with their infants.ResultsA total of 231 responses were received. Visitation limited to a single visitor with no restrictions on duration was the most frequently reported policy; 140/217 (63%). Visitation policies were perceived as being restrictive by 62% (138/219) of the respondents with 37% (80/216) reporting being able to visit less often than desired, 41% (78/191) reporting being unable to bond enough and 27% (51/191) reporting not being able to participate in their baby's daily care. Mild to severe impact on breast feeding was reported by 36% (75/209) of respondents. Stricter policies had a higher impact on families and were significantly associated with a lack of bonding time, inability to participate in care and an adverse impact on breast feeding.ConclusionsVisitation policies during the COVID-19 pandemic varied between centres and over time with stricter restrictions implemented earlier on in the pandemic. Parents reported significant impacts on their ability to visit, care for and bond with their infants with perceived severity of impact worse with stricter restrictions.
| S-EPMC7661349 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRestricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate.ResultsOf 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%).ConclusionsPatients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals.Trial registrationThe review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.
| S-EPMC8465762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has posed novel risks related to the indoor mixing of individuals from different households and challenged policymakers to adequately regulate this behaviour. While in many cases household visits are necessary for the purpose of social care, they have been linked to broadening community transmission of the virus. In this study we propose a novel, privacy-preserving framework for the measurement of household visitation at national and regional scales, making use of passively collected mobility data. We implement this approach in England from January 2020 to May 2021. The measures expose significant spatial and temporal variation in household visitation patterns, impacted by both national and regional lockdown policies, and the rollout of the vaccination programme. The findings point to complex social processes unfolding differently over space and time, likely informed by variations in policy adherence, vaccine relaxation, and regional interventions.
| S-EPMC8617191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To understand hospital policies and practices as the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) conducted a survey through the SHEA Research Network (SRN). The survey assessed policies and practices around the optimization of personal protection equipment (PPE), testing, healthcare personnel policies, visitors of COVID-19 patients in relation to procedures, and types of patients. Overall, 69 individual healthcare facilities responded in the United States and internationally, for a 73% response rate.
| S-EPMC7360941 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9378211 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn response to the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2, hospitals in Canada enacted temporary visitor restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and preserve personal protective equipment supplies. This study describes the extent, variation, and fluctuation of Canadian adult intensive care unit (ICU) visitation policies before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted an environmental scan of Canadian hospital visitation policies throughout the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a two-phased study analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data.ResultsWe collected 257 documents with reference to visitation policies (preCOVID, 101 [39%]; midCOVID, 71 [28%]; and lateCOVID, 85 [33%]). Of these 257 documents, 38 (15%) were ICU-specific and 70 (27%) referenced the ICU. Most policies during the midCOVID/lateCOVID pandemic period allowed no visitors with specific exceptions (e.g., end-of-life). Framework analysis revealed five overarching themes: 1) reasons for restricted visitation policies; 2) visitation policies and expectations; 3) exceptions to visitation policy; 4) patient and family-centred care; and 5) communication and transparency.ConclusionsDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, most Canadian hospitals had public-facing visitor restriction policies with specific exception categories, most commonly for patients at end-of-life, patients requiring assistance, or COVID-19 positive patients (varying from not allowed to case-by-case). Further studies are needed to understand the consistency with which visitation policies were operationalized and how they may have impacted patient- and family-centred care.
| S-EPMC8244673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Of the many adverse outcomes that may result from the spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, known as COVID-19, one stands out as particularly vile: the experience of dying alone. Many healthcare facilities in the US and elsewhere adopted 'No-Visitor Rules' in an effort to contain the virus, but these rules mean that the countless people in nursing homes and hospital wards were isolated during their final hours of life. There is no epidemiological or US federal or state requirement to prohibit visitation to (and thereby isolate) dying patients-even those with COVID-19. Instead, constructing pandemic-specific visitation policies is usually left to the discretion of hospitals and healthcare providers. Such policies aim to limit the risk of exposure but fail to account for the individual and social costs associated with dying alone for patients, families, and frontline healthcare workers. As a result, the policies may be overly restrictive and actively cause harm. This article argues that US hospital visitation policies need to be democratised to include the perspectives of community members and patients. By drawing on existing patient rights frameworks, this article outlines several legal strategies to reconceptualise hospital visitation policies as a civil rights issue.
| S-EPMC8522376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMobilization and acute rehabilitation are essential in the intensive care unit (ICU), with substantial evidence supporting their benefits. This study aimed to characterize ICU mobilization practices during the COVID-19 pandemic for patients with and without COVID-19.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of an international point prevalence study. All ICUs across the world were eligible to participate and were required to enroll all patients in each ICU on the survey date, 27 January 2021. The primary outcome was the achievement of mobilization at the level of sitting over the edge of the bed. Independent factors associated with mobilization, including COVID-19 infection, were analyzed by multivariable analysis.ResultsA total of 135 ICUs in 33 countries participated, for inclusion of 1229 patients. Among patients who were not receiving mechanical ventilation (MV), those with COVID-19 infection were mobilized more than those without COVID-19 (60% vs. 34%, p < 0.001). Among patients who were receiving MV, mobilization was low in both groups (7% vs. 9%, p = .56). These findings were consistent irrespective of ICU length of stay. Multivariable analysis showed that COVID-19 infection was associated with achievement of mobilization in patients without (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.71-7.42) and with MV (aOR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.00-4.51). Factors that prevented mobilization were prone positioning in patients without MV and continuous use of neuromuscular blockade and sedation agents in patients with MV, whereas facilitating factors were the presence of targets/goals in both groups.ConclusionMobilization rates for ICU patients across the globe are severely low, with the greatest immobility observed in mechanically ventilated patients. Although COVID-19 is not an independent barrier to the mobilization of patients with or without MV, this study has highlighted the current lack of mobility practice for all ICU patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.(299 words).
| S-EPMC9047602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The U.S. 2020 hurricane season was extraordinary because of a record number of named storms coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study draws lessons on how individual hurricane preparedness is influenced by the additional risk stemming from a pandemic, which turns out to be a combination of perceptions of flood and pandemic risks that have opposite effects on preparedness behavior. We conducted a survey in early June 2020 of 600 respondents in flood-prone areas in Florida to obtain insights into households' risk perceptions and preparedness for the upcoming hurricane season under COVID-19. The results show that concerns over COVID-19 dominated flood risk perceptions and negatively impacted people's evacuation intentions. Whereas hotel costs were the main obstacle to evacuating during Hurricane Dorian in 2019 in the same geographic study area, the main evacuation obstacle identified in the 2020 hurricane season is COVID-19. Our statistical analyses investigating the factors influencing evacuation intentions show that older individuals are less likely to evacuate under a voluntary order, because they are more concerned about the consequences of becoming infected by COVID-19. We observe similar findings based on a real-time survey we conducted in Florida with another group of respondents under the threat of Hurricane Eta at the end of the hurricane season in November 2020. We discuss the implications of our findings for risk communication and emergency management policies that aim to improve hurricane preparedness when dealing with additional health risks such as a pandemic, a situation that may be exacerbated under the future climate.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11069-021-05064-2.
| S-EPMC8526995 | biostudies-literature