The impact of delaying surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed health care systems, leading many jurisdictions to reduce surgeries to create capacity (beds and staff) to care for the surge of patients with COVID-19; little is known about the impact of this on patients whose surgery was delayed. The objective of this study was to understand the patient and family/caregiver perspective of having a surgery delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using an interpretative descriptive approach, we conducted interviews between Sept. 20 and Oct. 8, 2021. Adult patients who had their surgery delayed or cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada, and their family/caregivers were eligible to participate. Trained interviewers conducted semistructured interviews, which were iteratively analyzed by 2 independent reviewers using an inductive approach to thematic content analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 16 interviews with 15 patients and 1 family member/caregiver, ranging from 27 to 75 years of age, with a variety of surgical procedures delayed. We identified 4 interconnected themes: individual-level impacts on physical and mental health, family and friends, work and quality of life; system-level factors related to health care resources, communication and perceived accountability within the system; unique issues related to COVID-19 (maintaining health and isolation); and uncertainty about health and timing of surgery. INTERPRETATION: Although the decision to delay nonurgent surgeries was made to manage the strain on health care systems, our study illustrates the consequences of these decisions, which were diffuse and consequential. The findings of this study highlight the need to develop and adopt strategies to mitigate the burden of waiting for surgery during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Impact of Restricted Visitation Policies during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Communication between Critically Ill Patients, Families, and Clinicians: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Rationale: Restricted visitation policies during the first wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have had a major impact on the ways that intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians communicated with patients and their families, requiring the use of innovative strategies to adapt to new communication structures. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to describe the impact of restricted visitation policies on communication and to identify strategies that could be used to facilitate better communication within Canadian ICUs from the perspective of those affected. Methods: We conducted semistructured individual interviews with critically ill patients, their families, and clinicians from 23 Canadian ICUs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between July 2020 and October 2020. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify relevant themes and subthemes. Results: Forty-one interviews were conducted with 3 patients, 8 family members, 17 nurses, and 13 physicians. Five themes were identified from the analysis: 1) patient and family psychosocial and information needs; 2) communication tools; 3) quality of communication; 4) changing roles and responsibilities of patients and nurses/physicians; and 5) facilitators or barriers to implementing alternative communication. Participants identified strategies to leverage new videoconference technology and communication structures to preserve the quality of communication. Conclusions: Our study identified challenges and opportunities related to communication between critically ill patients, families, and ICU clinicians due to the restricted hospital visitation policies during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of videoconference technology and changes to communication structure were important strategies to facilitate effective communication within the ICU.

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.

Change in humor and sarcasm use based on anxiety and depression symptom severity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Humor and sarcasm may be used as potential coping strategies during challenging times, and to improve wellbeing. We investigated changes in humor and sarcasm use during the COVID-19 pandemic in participants with varying anxiety and depression symptom severity, and in those with versus without psychiatric disorders. METHODS: Online data was collected from N = 661 Canadian adults during the height of COVID-19-related restrictions. Depression and anxiety symptom severity were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale. Participants were queried on current presence/absence of a psychiatric disorder, and on changes in humor and sarcasm use during compared to before the pandemic. RESULTS: Participants with any vs. no depression symptoms reported more sarcasm and humor use during the pandemic. Respondents with mild and severe vs. no anxiety symptoms reported using more sarcasm. However, those with any vs. no anxiety symptoms used less humor during the pandemic. Finally, less humor use was noted in those without vs. with a psychiatric disorder. LIMITATIONS: The use of self-report measures and a sample that may limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with depression symptoms used more humor and sarcasm as a potential coping strategy during COVID-19. While individuals with anxiety symptoms used more sarcasm, this was not true of humor, suggesting their decreased reliance on levity during a crisis. Humor use was greater in those with psychiatric disorders, perhaps due to self-preservation mechanisms during times of distress. Our findings have implications for using humor in therapy in individuals with mental health struggles and mood disorders.

The burden of loneliness: Implications of the social determinants of health during COVID-19.

This study sought to examine if mental health issues, namely depression and anxiety symptoms, and loneliness were experienced differently according to various demographic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., a societal stressor). An online survey, comprising demographic questions and questionnaires on depression, anxiety and loneliness symptoms, was distributed in Canada during the height of social distancing restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents (N=661) from lower income households experienced greater anxiety, depression and loneliness. Specifically, loneliness was greater in those with an annual income <$50,000/yr versus higher income brackets. Younger females (18-29yr) displayed greater anxiety, depressive symptoms and loneliness than their male counterparts; this difference did not exist among the other age groups (30-64yr, >65yr). Moreover, loneliness scores increased with increasing depression and anxiety symptom severity category. The relationship between loneliness and depression symptoms was moderated by gender, such that females experienced higher depressive symptoms when encountering greater loneliness. These data identify younger females, individuals with lower income, and those living alone as experiencing greater loneliness and mental health challenges during the height of the pandemic in Canada. We highlight the strong relationship between loneliness, depression and anxiety, and emphasize increased vulnerability among certain cohorts.