Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

In 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

During 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.

SUBMITTER: Fiest KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244673 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic wave, an unprecedented number of patients with respiratory failure due to a new, highly contagious virus needed hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The aim of the present study was to describe the communication and visiting policies of Italian intensive care units (ICUs) during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave and national lockdown and compare these data with prepandemic conditions.MethodsA national web-based survey was conducted among 290 Italian hospitals. Each ICU (active between February 24 and May 31, 2020) was encouraged to complete an individual questionnaire inquiring the hospital/ICU structure/organization, communication/visiting habits and the role of clinical psychology prior to, and during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave.ResultsTwo hundred and nine ICUs from 154 hospitals (53% of the contacted hospitals) completed the survey (202 adult and 7 pediatric ICUs). Among adult ICUs, 60% were dedicated to COVID-19 patients, 21% were dedicated to patients without COVID-19 and 19% were dedicated to both categories (Mixed). A total of 11,102 adult patients were admitted to the participating ICUs during the study period and only approximately 6% of patients received at least one visit. Communication with family members was guaranteed daily through an increased use of electronic devices and was preferentially addressed to the same family member. Compared to the prepandemic period, clinical psychologists supported physicians more often regarding communication with family members. Fewer patients received at least one visit from family members in COVID and mixed-ICUs than in non-COVID ICUs, l (0 [0-6]%, 0 [0-4]% and 11 [2-25]%, respectively, p < 0.001). Habits of pediatric ICUs were less affected by the pandemic.ConclusionsVisiting policies of Italian ICUs dedicated to adult patients were markedly altered during the first COVID-19 wave. Remote communication was widely adopted as a surrogate for family meetings. New strategies to favor a family-centered approach during the current and future pandemics are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundAs the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the globe at the beginning of 2020, healthcare systems were forced to rapidly adapt and expand to meet the sudden surge in demand for intensive care services. This study is the first systematic analysis of the strategies employed by German hospitals to recruit personnel and expand bed capacities during the first wave of the pandemic, and to evaluate the effectiveness of those recruitment measures.Methods152 German hospitals with intensive care capacities were selected and invited to participate in an online-based retrospective survey. Factors like the geographic distribution, individual COVID burden and level of care were considered for inclusion in the sample. The data were analyzed descriptively.ResultsA total of 41 hospitals participated in the survey. The additional demand for intensive care beds was met primarily by activating intensive care beds that were previously considered as non-operational in existing intensive care units (81% of respondents) and by upgrading recovery rooms (73%). The physician staffing requirements were met at approximately 75%, while the nursing staffing requirements were only met by about 45%. Staffing needs were met through reallocations/transfers (85%), staff recruitment from parental leave or retirement (49%), increased hours worked by internal staff (49%), new staff hiring (44%) and increased use of temporary staff (32%). Staff reallocations/transfers to critical care within a hospital were rated as the most effective measure. In this context, specialized personnel mostly from anesthesiology departments were appointed to intensive care medicine.ConclusionsDespite multiple recruitment efforts, the pandemic has exacerbated the nursing staff shortage. The reallocation of existing staff within hospitals was a key element in covering the staffing needs. However, additional measures and efforts are required in order to ensure that critically ill patients can be cared for without compromise. The results of this study may have important implications for healthcare providers and policymakers, offering an evidence-based foundation for responding to future public health emergencies with agility, efficiency, and success.

Project description:IntroductionPhysical restraint (PR) use in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated with higher rates of self-extubation and prolonged ICU length of stay. Our objectives were to describe patterns and predictors of PR use.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of analgosedation, antipsychotic, neuromuscular blocker, and PR practices in 51 Canadian ICUs. Data were collected prospectively for all mechanically ventilated adults admitted during a two-week period. We tested for patient, treatment, and hospital characteristics that were associated with PR use and number of days of use, using logistic and Poisson regression respectively.ResultsPR was used on 374 out of 711 (53%) patients, for a mean number of 4.1 (standard deviation (SD) 4.0) days. Treatment characteristics associated with PR were higher daily benzodiazepine dose (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11), higher daily opioid dose (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06), antipsychotic drugs (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.48), agitation (Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) >4) (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 9.29), and sedation administration method (continuous and bolus versus bolus only) (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.48). Hospital characteristics associated with PR indicated patients were less likely to be restrained in ICUs from university-affiliated hospitals (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61). Mainly treatment characteristics were associated with more days of PR, including: higher daily benzodiazepine dose (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13), daily sedation interruption (IRR 3.44, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.10), antipsychotic drugs (IRR 15.67, 95% CI 6.62 to 37.12), SAS <3 (IRR 2.62, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.35), and any adverse event including accidental device removal (IRR 8.27, 95% CI 2.07 to 33.08). Patient characteristics (age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, admission category, prior substance abuse, prior psychotropic medication, pre-existing psychiatric condition or dementia) were not associated with PR use or number of days used.ConclusionsPR was used in half of the patients in these 51 ICUs. Treatment characteristics predominantly predicted PR use, as opposed to patient or hospital/ICU characteristics. Use of sedative, analgesic, and antipsychotic drugs, agitation, heavy sedation, and occurrence of an adverse event predicted PR use or number of days used.

Project description:BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAs 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.InterpretationEarly 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.

Project description:IntroductionCritical illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is associated with a high burden of pulmonary embolism (PE) and thromboembolic events despite standard thromboprophylaxis. Available guidance is discordant, ranging from standard care to the use of therapeutic anticoagulation for enhanced thromboprophylaxis (ET). Local ET protocols have been empirically determined and are generally intermediate between standard prophylaxis and full anticoagulation. Concerns have been raised in regard to the potential risk of haemorrhage associated with therapeutic anticoagulation. This report describes the prevalence and safety of ET strategies in European Intensive Care Unit (ICUs) and their association with outcomes during the first wave of the COVID pandemic, with particular focus on haemorrhagic complications and ICU mortality.MethodsRetrospective, observational, multi-centre study including adult critically ill COVID-19 patients. Anonymised data included demographics, clinical characteristics, thromboprophylaxis and/or anticoagulation treatment. Critical haemorrhage was defined as intracranial haemorrhage or bleeding requiring red blood cells transfusion. Survival was collected at ICU discharge. A multivariable mixed effects generalised linear model analysis matched for the propensity for receiving ET was constructed for both ICU mortality and critical haemorrhage.ResultsA total of 852 (79% male, age 66 [37-85] years) patients were included from 28 ICUs. Median body mass index and ICU length of stay were 27.7 (25.1-30.7) Kg/m2 and 13 (7-22) days, respectively. Thromboembolic events were reported in 146 patients (17.1%), of those 78 (9.2%) were PE. ICU mortality occurred in 335/852 (39.3%) patients. ET was used in 274 (32.1%) patients, and it was independently associated with significant reduction in ICU mortality (log odds = 0.64 [95% CIs 0.18-1.1; p = 0.0069]) but not an increased risk of critical haemorrhage (log odds = 0.187 [95%CI - 0.591 to - 0.964; p = 0.64]).ConclusionsIn a cohort of critically ill patients with a high prevalence of thromboembolic events, ET was associated with reduced ICU mortality without an increased burden of haemorrhagic complications. This study suggests ET strategies are safe and associated with favourable outcomes. Whilst full anticoagulation has been questioned for prophylaxis in these patients, our results suggest that there may nevertheless be a role for enhanced / intermediate levels of prophylaxis. Clinical trials investigating causal relationship between intermediate thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes are urgently needed.

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.