Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 138
Filter
1.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(12): 1790-1792, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2128540
2.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs ; 70: 103215, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1679613
3.
Can J Anaesth ; 69(7): 868-879, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1930581

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Visitors to Patients , Canada , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics/prevention & control , Policy
4.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0265082, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1896452

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) pandemic, many hospitals imposed a no-visitation policy for visiting patients in hospitals to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among visitors and patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between the no-visitation policy and delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: This was a single-center, before-after comparative study. Patients were admitted to a mixed medical-surgical ICU from September 6, 2019 to October 18, 2020. Because no-visitation policy was implemented on February 26, 2020, we compared patients admitted after this date (after phase) with the patients admitted before the no-visitation policy (before phase) was implemented. The primary outcome was the incidence of delirium during the ICU stay. Cox regression was used for the primary analysis and was calculated using hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Covariates were age, sex, APACHE II, dementia, emergency surgery, benzodiazepine, and mechanical ventilation use. RESULTS: Of the total 200 patients consecutively recruited, 100 were exposed to a no-visitation policy. The number of patients who developed delirium during ICU stay during the before phase and the after phase were 59 (59%) and 64 (64%), respectively (P = 0.127). The adjusted HR of no-visitation policy for the number of days until the first development of delirium during the ICU stay was 0.895 (0.613-1.306). CONCLUSION: The no-visitation policy was not associated with the development of delirium in ICU patients.


Subject(s)
Delirium/epidemiology , Policy , Visitors to Patients/legislation & jurisprudence , APACHE , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Delirium/diagnosis , Delirium/pathology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Male , Proportional Hazards Models , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
5.
Am J Nurs ; 122(6): 13, 2022 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1874007
7.
J Crit Care ; 71: 154050, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1819524

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Visitors to Patients , Communication , Critical Care , Family , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Organizational Policy , Pandemics , Policy
11.
J Healthc Qual Res ; 36(5): 263-268, 2021.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1712800

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: During the worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, hospitals developed contingency plans that transformed and reorganized the hospital activity. One of the measures was to restrict access to family members of hospitalized patients. The presence of the patient's family is considered an alternative to physical restraint. The aim of this study is to compare the use of physical restraint in hospitalized patients in an acute care hospital during the previous period of the pandemic of COVID-19 with the post-confinement period with hospitals being still closed to family. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We made an observational study that compares the prevalence of physical restraint in an acute care hospital during the previous period to the alarm state (February 2020) with the second period, when visits where restricted (May 2020). From the clinical history of the patients with physical restraint we collected the following variables: sex, diagnostic, hospital admission unit, reason for using physical restraint, localization, length, type of material, registration in the medical record, information given to the family, alternatives to the physical restraint and injuries related to the physical restraint. RESULTS: We evaluated 690 patients: 388 during the previous period and 320 during the second period. From all patients, 29 needed physical restraint. The use of physical restraint went from 8 (2%) to 21 (7%) (p=0.003). In the second period, a not statistically significant increase in continuous physical restraint was identified compared to the first period. CONCLUSIONS: The physical restraint prevalence has been superior during the second period in which families were not present with the hospitalized patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Family , Restraint, Physical/statistics & numerical data , Visitors to Patients , Acute Disease , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
13.
Epidemiol Infect ; 150: e3, 2021 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1616906

ABSTRACT

Hand hygiene (HH) performance on entering intensive care units (ICUs) is commonly accepted but often inadequately performed. We developed a simple, inexpensive module that connects touchless dispensers of alcohol sanitiser (TDAS) to the automatic doors of a paediatric ICU, and assessed the impact of this intervention on HH compliance of hospital staff and visitors. A prospective observational study was conducted over a 3-week period prior to the intervention, followed by a 4-week period post intervention. HH performance was monitored by a research assistant whose office location enabled direct and video-assisted observation of the ICU entrance. A total of 609 entries to the ICU was recorded. Overall HH performance was 46.9% (92/196) before and 98.5% (406/413) after the intervention. Our findings suggest that HH performance on entering an ICU can be improved via a mechanism that makes operation of an automatic door dependent on use of a TDAS system, and thus contribute to infection control.


Subject(s)
Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Hygiene/methods , Visitors to Patients/statistics & numerical data , Hand Hygiene/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Intensive Care Units, Pediatric/standards , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies
16.
J Public Health Manag Pract ; 28(1): E299-E306, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526218

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals have developed visitor restriction policies in order to mitigate spread of infection. We reviewed hospital visitor restriction policies for consistency and to develop recommendations to highlight fair and transparent restrictions, exceptions, and appeals in policy development and implementation. DESIGN: Collection and analysis of public-facing visitor restriction policies during the first 3 months of the pandemic. SETTING: General acute care hospitals representing 23 states across all 4 major regions of the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of the 70 largest hospitals by total bed capacity. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of visitor restriction policies including general visitor restriction statement, changes/updates to policies over time, exceptions to policies, and restrictions specific to COVID-19-positive patients. RESULTS: Sixty-five of the 70 hospitals reviewed had public-facing visitor restriction policies. Forty-nine of these 65 policies had general "no-visitor" statements, whereas 16 allowed at least 1 visitor to accompany all patients. Sixty-three of 65 hospitals included exceptions to their visitor restriction policies. Setting-specific exceptions included pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology, emergency department, behavioral health, inpatient rehabilitation, surgery, and outpatient clinics. Exceptions that applied across settings included patients at end of life and patients with disabilities. CONCLUSION: Visitor restriction policies varied significantly among hospitals in this review. These variances create challenges in that their fair application may be problematic and ethical issues related to allocation may arise. Five recommendations are offered for hospitals revising or creating such policies, including that offering transparent, accessible, public-facing policies can minimize ethical dilemmas. In addition, hospitals would benefit from communicating with each other in the development of visitor policies to ensure uniformity and support patients and family members as they navigate hospital visitation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Child , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Policy , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , Visitors to Patients
17.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): e1037-e1039, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475866

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine if a restrictive visitor policy inadvertently lengthened the decision-making process for dying inpatients without coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Regression discontinuity and time-to-event analysis. SETTING: Two large academic hospitals in a unified health system. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Adult decedents who received greater than or equal to 1 day of ICU care during their terminal admission over a 12-month period. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation of a visit restriction policy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 940 adult decedents without coronavirus disease 2019 during the study period. For these patients, ICU length of stay was 0.8 days longer following policy implementation, although this effect was not statistically significant (95% CI, -2.3 to 3.8; p = 0.63). After excluding patients admitted before the policy but who died after implementation, we observed that ICU length of stay was 2.9 days longer post-policy (95% CI, 0.27-5.6; p = 0.03). A time-to-event analysis revealed that admission after policy implementation was associated with a significantly longer time to first do not resuscitate/do not intubate/comfort care order (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.6-3.1; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Policies restricting family presence may lead to longer ICU stays and delay decisions to limit treatment prior to death. Further policy evaluation and programs enabling access to family-centered care and palliative care during the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic are imperative.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Decision Making , Health Policy , Visitors to Patients/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/psychology , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Terminal Care/methods , Terminal Care/psychology , Terminal Care/standards
20.
Eur J Clin Invest ; 51(12): e13687, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1443255

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether behavioral precautions adopted during Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic also influenced the spreading and multidrug resistance (MDR) of ESKAPEEc (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii [AB], Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp and Escherichia Coli, [EC]) among Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. SUBJECTS/METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study in adult patients admitted to our COVID-19-free surgical ICU. Only patients staying in ICU for more than 48 hours were included. The ESKAPEEc infections recorded during the COVID-19 period (June 1, 2020 - February 28, 2021) and in the corresponding pre-pandemic period (June 1, 2019 - February 28, 2020) were compared. An interrupted time series analysis was performed to rule out possible confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 173 patients in the COVID-19 period and 132 in the pre-COVID-19 period were investigated. The ESKAPEEc infections were documented in 23 (13.3%) and 35 (26.5%) patients in the pandemic and the pre-pandemic periods, respectively (p = 0.005). Demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities, type of surgery, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, length of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU length of stay, ICU death rate, and 28-day hospital mortality were similar in the two groups. In comparison with the pre-pandemic period, no AB was recorded during COVID-19 period, (p = 0.017), while extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing EC infections significantly decreased (p = 0.017). Overall, the ESKAPEEc isolates during pandemic less frequently exhibited multidrug-resistant (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a robust adherence to hygiene measures together with human contact restrictions in a COVID-19 free ICU might also restrain the transmission of ESKAPEEc pathogens.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Infection Control , Acinetobacter Infections/epidemiology , Acinetobacter Infections/microbiology , Acinetobacter Infections/transmission , Acinetobacter baumannii , Aged , Cross Infection/microbiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial , Enterobacter , Enterobacteriaceae Infections/epidemiology , Enterobacteriaceae Infections/microbiology , Enterobacteriaceae Infections/transmission , Enterococcus faecium , Escherichia coli Infections/epidemiology , Escherichia coli Infections/microbiology , Escherichia coli Infections/transmission , Female , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/transmission , Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections/transmission , Hand Disinfection , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Klebsiella Infections/epidemiology , Klebsiella Infections/microbiology , Klebsiella Infections/transmission , Klebsiella pneumoniae , Male , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Middle Aged , Organizational Policy , Personal Protective Equipment , Pseudomonas Infections/epidemiology , Pseudomonas Infections/microbiology , Pseudomonas Infections/transmission , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Staphylococcal Infections/epidemiology , Staphylococcal Infections/microbiology , Staphylococcal Infections/transmission , Staphylococcus aureus , Visitors to Patients
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL