Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Variation in communication and family visiting policies in intensive care within and between countries during the Covid-19 pandemic: The COVISIT international survey.
Tabah, Alexis; Elhadi, Muhammed; Ballard, Emma; Cortegiani, Andrea; Cecconi, Maurizio; Unoki, Takeshi; Galarza, Laura; Rosa, Regis Goulart; Barbier, Francois; Azoulay, Elie; Laupland, Kevin B; Kai, Nathalie Ssi Yan; Ostermann, Marlies; Francois, Guy; De Waele, Jan J; Fiest, Kirsten; Spronk, Peter; Benbenishty, Julie; Pellegrini, Mariangela; Rose, Louise.
  • Tabah A; Intensive Care Unit, Redcliffe Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health services, Queensland, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: a.tabah@uq.edu.au.
  • Elhadi M; Faculty of Medicine, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya.
  • Ballard E; QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  • Cortegiani A; Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Italy; Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico Paolo Giaccone, Palermo, Italy.
  • Cecconi M; Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Units, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
  • Unoki T; Department of Acute and Critical Care Nursing, School of Nursing, Sapporo City University, Sapporo, Japan.
  • Galarza L; Department of Intensive Care, Hospital General Universitario de Castellon, Castellon de la Plana, Spain.
  • Rosa RG; Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
  • Barbier F; Médecine Intensive - Réanimation Hôpital de la Source - CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
  • Azoulay E; Médecine Intensive et Réanimation, Groupe FAMIREA, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
  • Laupland KB; Department of Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  • Kai NSY; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  • Ostermann M; Department of Critical Care & Nephrology, King's College London, Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
  • Francois G; Division of Scientific Affairs, Research, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.
  • De Waele JJ; Department of Critical Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Division of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
  • Fiest K; Departments of Critical Care Medicine, Community Health Sciences, Psychiatry, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
  • Spronk P; Departments of Intensive Care Medicine, Gelre Hospitals, Albert Schweitzerlaan, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
  • Benbenishty J; Intensive Care Trauma, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
  • Pellegrini M; Intensive Care Unit, AnOpIVA, Akademiska sjukhuset, Uppsala, Sweden; Hedenstierna Laboratory, Department of Surgical Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
  • Rose L; Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK; Critical Care and Lane Fox Clinical Respiratory Physiology Research Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
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)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Visitors to Patients / COVID-19 Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J Crit Care Journal subject: Critical Care Year: 2022 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Visitors to Patients / COVID-19 Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J Crit Care Journal subject: Critical Care Year: 2022 Document Type: Article