Comparison between the perceptions of family members and health professionals regarding a flexible visitation model in an adult intensive care unit: a cross-sectional study.

Cláudia Severgnini Eugênio, Tarissa da Silva Ribeiro Haack, Cassiano Teixeira, Regis Goulart Rosa, Emiliane Nogueira de Souza
{"title":"Comparison between the perceptions of family members and health professionals regarding a flexible visitation model in an adult intensive care unit: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Cláudia Severgnini Eugênio,&nbsp;Tarissa da Silva Ribeiro Haack,&nbsp;Cassiano Teixeira,&nbsp;Regis Goulart Rosa,&nbsp;Emiliane Nogueira de Souza","doi":"10.5935/0103-507X.20220114-pt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the perceptions of patients' relatives with the perceptions of health professionals regarding a flexible visitation model in intensive care units.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional study. This study was carried out with patients' relatives and members of the care team of a clinical-surgical intensive care unit with a flexible visitation model (12 hours/day) from September to December 2018. The evaluation of the flexible visitation policy was carried out through an open visitation instrument composed of 22 questions divided into three domains (evaluation of family stress, provision of information, and interference in the work of the team).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-five accompanying relatives and 95 members of the care team were analyzed. The perceptions of relatives regarding the decrease in anxiety and stress with flexible visitation was higher than the perceptions of the team (91.6% versus 58.9%, p < 0.001), and the family also had a more positive perception regarding the provision of information (86.3% versus 64.2%, p < 0.001). The care team believed that the presence of the relative made it difficult to provide care to the patient and caused work interruptions (46.3% versus 6.3%, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Family members and staff-intensive care unit teams have different perceptions about flexible visits in the intensive care unit. However, a positive view regarding the perception of decreased anxiety and stress among the family members and greater information and contributions to patient recovery predominates.</p>","PeriodicalId":53519,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva","volume":"34 3","pages":"374-379"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9749100/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20220114-pt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: To compare the perceptions of patients' relatives with the perceptions of health professionals regarding a flexible visitation model in intensive care units.

Methods: Cross-sectional study. This study was carried out with patients' relatives and members of the care team of a clinical-surgical intensive care unit with a flexible visitation model (12 hours/day) from September to December 2018. The evaluation of the flexible visitation policy was carried out through an open visitation instrument composed of 22 questions divided into three domains (evaluation of family stress, provision of information, and interference in the work of the team).

Results: Ninety-five accompanying relatives and 95 members of the care team were analyzed. The perceptions of relatives regarding the decrease in anxiety and stress with flexible visitation was higher than the perceptions of the team (91.6% versus 58.9%, p < 0.001), and the family also had a more positive perception regarding the provision of information (86.3% versus 64.2%, p < 0.001). The care team believed that the presence of the relative made it difficult to provide care to the patient and caused work interruptions (46.3% versus 6.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Family members and staff-intensive care unit teams have different perceptions about flexible visits in the intensive care unit. However, a positive view regarding the perception of decreased anxiety and stress among the family members and greater information and contributions to patient recovery predominates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家庭成员和卫生专业人员对成人重症监护病房灵活探视模式的看法比较:一项横断面研究。
目的:比较患者家属与卫生专业人员对重症监护病房灵活探视模式的看法。方法:横断面研究。本研究于2018年9月至12月在采用灵活探视模式(12小时/天)的临床-外科重症监护病房的患者亲属和护理团队成员中进行。对灵活探视政策的评估是通过一个开放式探视工具进行的,该工具由22个问题组成,分为三个领域(家庭压力评估、信息提供和对小组工作的干预)。结果:对95名随行亲属和95名护理小组成员进行分析。亲属对灵活探视减轻焦虑和压力的看法高于团队(91.6%比58.9%,p < 0.001),家庭对提供信息的看法也更积极(86.3%比64.2%,p < 0.001)。护理团队认为,亲属的存在使护理病人变得困难,并导致工作中断(46.3%对6.3%,p < 0.001)。结论:家属和重症监护室工作人员对重症监护室灵活就诊的认识存在差异。然而,一个积极的看法,关于减少焦虑和压力的感知在家庭成员和更多的信息和贡献,病人的恢复占主导地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Patient-level costs of central line-associated bloodstream infections caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms in a public intensive care unit in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study Critical COVID-19 and neurological dysfunction - a direct comparative analysis between SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious pathogens. Reply to: Epistaxis as a complication of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in adults. Robust, maintainable, emergency invasive mechanical ventilator. Erratum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1