Website information on visiting policies at specialist in-patient palliative care settings during COVID-19 pandemic across Central and Eastern Europe: a quantitative and qualitative study

Introduction: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, visiting policies in various healthcare centres across the world have changed. Visiting patients by relatives and friends have been stopped or significantly limited. New conditions and legal constraints for family visits had to be implemented also at in-patient palliative care settings, even though accompanying a dying person is crucial for the quality of the end of life. The study aimed to identify and review the visiting policies at in-patient specialist palliative care settings across Central and Eastern Europe. Patients and Methods: The study was conducted one year after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak from May to October 2021. Information about visiting policies, published on official websites of the in-patient specialised palliative care settings (stationary hospices and hospital-based palliative care units) from Central and Eastern European countries, were identified and categorised. The websites which lacked information about visiting policy during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the obtained data was conducted by using content analysis techniques and descriptive analysis. The content from websites was translated into Polish with the usage of the Google Translate machine tool. Result(s): Data from 55 in-patient palliative care settings from 8 countries were collected and analysed (83.6% from Poland, and the other from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine). In 43.6% of the organisations, visits were stopped and 56.4% of settings published information about the special requirements for visiting arrangements. In 32.7% of all examined units upfront approval from a physician or the head of a department for visiting a patient was required, and 29.1% published information about personal protective equipment. 32.7% of organizations recommended telephone contact with the patient, and 12.7% provided video calls. Conclusion(s): Web information regarding visiting patients in in-patient palliative care settings is limited. There is a need to establish detailed requirements for the visits with better access to the website for the visitors, in case of a global disease outbreak.Copyright © Via Medica, ISSN 2545-0425, e-ISSN: 2545-1359.

Variation in Communication and Family Visiting Policies in Italian Intensive Care Units during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Secondary Analysis of the COVISIT International Survey.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions to in-person visiting of caregivers to patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) were applied in many countries. Our aim was to describe the variations in communication and family visiting policies in Italian ICUs during the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis from the COVISIT international survey was conducted, focusing on data from Italy. RESULTS: Italian ICUs provided 118 (18%) responses out of 667 responses collected worldwide. A total of 12 Italian ICUs were at the peak of COVID-19 admissions at the time of the survey and 42/118 had 90% or more of patients admitted to ICU affected by COVID-19. During the COVID-19 peak, 74% of Italian ICUs adopted a no-in-person-visiting policy. This remained the most common strategy (67%) at the time of the survey. Information to families was provided by regular phone calls (81% in Italy versus 47% for the rest of the world). Virtual visiting was available for 69% and most commonly performed using devices provided by the ICU (71% in Italy versus 36% outside Italy). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that restrictions to the ICU applied during the COVID-19 pandemic were still in use at the time of the survey. The main means of communication with caregivers were telephone and virtual meetings.

Family caregivers as essential partners in care: examining the impacts of restrictive acute care visiting policies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: During the pandemic many Canadian hospitals made significant changes to their 'open family presence' and 'visitor policies' to reduce the spread of COVID-19 by instituting restrictive or 'zero visiting' policies in healthcare facilities. These policies have the potential to create great hardship, anxiety and stress for patients, families, caregivers and frontline healthcare providers (HCPs); along with concerns about the quality and safety of patient care. The presence of family members and other caregivers as essential partners in care is an explicit expression of the philosophy of patient- and family-centred care (PFCC) in action. The purpose of this study is to increase our understanding of how changes to family presence and visiting policies and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted patients, family caregivers and frontline healthcare providers (HCPs) in acute care hospitals. METHODS: A total of 38 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, family caregivers and HCPs in Canadian provinces who had experience with visiting policies in acute care settings during the pandemic. COVID patients, and the caregivers of COVID patients, were excluded from this study. A maximum variation sampling strategy was used to guide the selection and recruitment of patients, family caregivers and HCPs, based on our interest in gaining a diversity of perspectives and experiences. RESULTS: Many patients, family caregivers, and HCPs view family caregiver presence as integral to PFCC, describing the essential roles played by family caregivers prior to the pandemic. There were commonalities across all three groups with respect to their perspectives on the impacts of restrictive visiting policies on patients, family caregivers and HCPs. They fell into four broad integrated categories: (1) emotional and mental health; (2) communication and advocacy; (3) safety and quality of care; and (4) PFCC, trust in the healthcare system, and future decisions regarding accessing needed healthcare. Recommendations for pandemic visiting policies were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study highlighted several impacts of restrictive family caregiver presence or visiting policies implemented during COVID-19 on patients, family caregivers and HCPs in acute healthcare settings across Canada. Participants emphasized that there is no "one-size-fits-all" caregiver presence policy that will address all patient needs. To be consistent with the practice of PFCC, patients and family caregivers are welcomed as part of the healthcare team in ways that work for them, demonstrating that flexibility in family presence and visiting policies is essential.

Family Visiting Restrictions and Postoperative Clinical Outcomes: A Retrospective Analysis.

In the last two years, all hospitals have adopted restricted visitation policies due to the coronavirus disease 2019. The objective of this study was to assess the consequences of hospital visitation restrictions on the most common outcome measures on adult patients who underwent surgery. A retrospective study design was conducted according to the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology statements in 2021. Forty patients exposed to a no-visitors policy and forty unexposed patients (1:1) were enrolled. Patients who were not allowed to receive family visits were more likely to report disorientation/agitation episodes (n = 25, 62.5% vs. n = 12, 30.0%; p < 0.01), spend more sleepless nights (n = 10, 25.0% vs. n = 1, 2.5%; p < 0.01), be restrained (n = 8, 20.0% vs. n = 1, 2.5%; p = 0.02), incur device-removal incidents (n = 14, 35.0% vs. n = 5, 12.5%; p = 0.01) compared to unexposed patients. Conversely, pain episodes were significantly more frequent in the unexposed group (n = 7.1, SD = 7.9 vs. n = 2.4, SD = 2.8; p < 0.01), and there was lower clinical deterioration risk (NEWS of 0-4 average 19.5, SD = 12.2 evaluations vs. 12.3, SD = 8.6; p < 0.01) compared to exposed patients. According to the results, family visiting restrictions should be measured against their possible advantages in order to prevent negative outcomes for surgical patients and to improve the quality of care.

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.

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

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.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: En réponse à la propagation rapide du SRAS-CoV-2, les hôpitaux du Canada ont adopté des restrictions temporaires pour les visites afin de limiter la propagation de la COVID-19 et de préserver les stocks d'équipements de protection individuelle. Cette étude décrit l'ampleur, les variations et fluctuations des politiques canadiennes concernant les visites aux unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes avant et pendant la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de milieu des politiques hospitalières canadiennes concernant les visites tout au long de la première vague de la pandémie. Nous avons mené une étude en deux phases analysant des données quantitatives et qualitatives. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recueilli 257 documents faisant référence aux politiques de visites (pré-COVID, 101 [39 %]; mid-COVID, 71 [28 %]; et COVID-tardif, 85 [33 %]). Sur ces 257 documents, 38 (15 %) étaient spécifiques aux USI et 70 (27 %) faisaient référence aux USI. La plupart des politiques au cours de la période pandémique mid-COVID/COVID-tardif ne permettaient aucune visite sauf exception spécifique (p. ex., fin de vie). L'analyse du cadre a révélé cinq thèmes généraux : 1) les raisons des restrictions des politiques de visites; 2) les politiques et attentes en matière de visites; 3) les exceptions aux politiques de visites; 4) les soins aux patients et centrés sur la famille; et 5) la communication et la transparence. CONCLUSION: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, la plupart des hôpitaux canadiens avaient des politiques de restriction des visites s'appliquant au public avec des catégories d'exception spécifiques, le plus souvent pour les patients en fin de vie, les patients nécessitant de l'aide ou les patients COVID-positifs (variant d'une interdiction au cas par cas). D'autres études sont nécessaires pour comprendre l'uniformité avec laquelle les politiques de visites ont été mises en œuvre et comment elles ont pu avoir une incidence sur les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.