Fulltext

Variation in communication and family visiting policies in intensive care within and between countries during the Covid-19 pandemic: The COVISIT international survey

Tabah A 1 , Elhadi M 2 , Ballard E 3 , Cortegiani A 4 , Cecconi M 5 , Unoki T 6 Show all authors , Galarza L 7 , Rosa RG 8 , Barbier F 9 , Azoulay E 10 , Laupland KB 11 , Kai NSY 12 , Ostermann M 13 , Francois G 14 , De Waele JJ 15 , Fiest K 16 , Spronk P 17 , Benbenishty J 18 , Pellegrini M 19 , Rose L 20 , COVISIT contributors

Affiliations 

  • 1 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
  • 2 Faculty of Medicine, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya
  • 3 QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • 4 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
  • 5 Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Units, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
  • 6 Department of Acute and Critical Care Nursing, School of Nursing, Sapporo City University, Sapporo, Japan
  • 7 Department of Intensive Care, Hospital General Universitario de Castellon, Castellon de la Plana, Spain
  • 8 Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
  • 9 Médecine Intensive - Réanimation Hôpital de la Source - CHR Orléans, Orléans, France
  • 10 Médecine Intensive et Réanimation, Groupe FAMIREA, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université de Paris, Paris, France
  • 11 Department of Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • 12 Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • 13 Department of Critical Care & Nephrology, King's College London, Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • 14 Division of Scientific Affairs, Research, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Brussels, Belgium
  • 15 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
  • 16 Departments of Critical Care Medicine, Community Health Sciences, Psychiatry, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
  • 17 Departments of Intensive Care Medicine, Gelre Hospitals, Albert Schweitzerlaan, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands
  • 18 Intensive Care Trauma, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
  • 19 Intensive Care Unit, AnOpIVA, Akademiska sjukhuset, Uppsala, Sweden; Hedenstierna Laboratory, Department of Surgical Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  • 20 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, 2022 Oct;71:154050.
PMID: 35525226 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.154050

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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications