{"title":"非面对面访问限制患者就诊以控制感染:综合回顾。","authors":"Hyunwoo Jeong, Yonsu Choi, Heejung Kim","doi":"10.2196/43572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the COVID-19 pandemic, a visit restriction policy for patients has been implemented in medical institutions worldwide and visits are being made using alternative communication technologies. This shift has also required the use of platforms to prevent negative consequences of these restrictions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this review was to comprehensively explore nonface-to-face visits as an alternative during infection prevention and to synthesize the scientific evidence of their benefits and disadvantages.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted via the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science electronic databases; unpublished trials in the clinical trials register ClinicalTrials.gov; and Virginia Henderson International Nursing Library up to September 10, 2021. The search query was developed according to the guidelines of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies and included keywords on the topics of telemedicine and visitation restrictions. The inclusion criteria were a nonface-to-face modality using telemedicine with family in a hospital setting, experimental and observational studies, and articles written in English. The exclusion criteria were inaccessible in full text, not related to patient or family involvement, mainly focused on the study protocol, or only discussing the pros and cons of telemedicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, patients' families experienced emotional distress due to restrictions on face-to-face visits. Nonface-to-face virtual visits compensating for these restrictions had a positive effect on reducing the risk of infection to the patient and the family. This further encouraged psychological and physical recovery and decreased psychological distress. However, nonface-to-face virtual technology could not replace the existence of actual families, and technical problems with networks and devices are reported as limitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ensuring the availability of technology and educating on the same in alignment with the characteristics of patients and their families, nonface-to-face virtual visits need to show more potential as an effective patient-centered treatment strategy based on more research and advanced practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51757,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","volume":"12 ","pages":"e43572"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10686251/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nonface-to-Face Visitation to Restrict Patient Visits for Infection Control: Integrative Review.\",\"authors\":\"Hyunwoo Jeong, Yonsu Choi, Heejung Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/43572\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the COVID-19 pandemic, a visit restriction policy for patients has been implemented in medical institutions worldwide and visits are being made using alternative communication technologies. This shift has also required the use of platforms to prevent negative consequences of these restrictions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this review was to comprehensively explore nonface-to-face visits as an alternative during infection prevention and to synthesize the scientific evidence of their benefits and disadvantages.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted via the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science electronic databases; unpublished trials in the clinical trials register ClinicalTrials.gov; and Virginia Henderson International Nursing Library up to September 10, 2021. The search query was developed according to the guidelines of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies and included keywords on the topics of telemedicine and visitation restrictions. The inclusion criteria were a nonface-to-face modality using telemedicine with family in a hospital setting, experimental and observational studies, and articles written in English. The exclusion criteria were inaccessible in full text, not related to patient or family involvement, mainly focused on the study protocol, or only discussing the pros and cons of telemedicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, patients' families experienced emotional distress due to restrictions on face-to-face visits. Nonface-to-face virtual visits compensating for these restrictions had a positive effect on reducing the risk of infection to the patient and the family. This further encouraged psychological and physical recovery and decreased psychological distress. However, nonface-to-face virtual technology could not replace the existence of actual families, and technical problems with networks and devices are reported as limitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ensuring the availability of technology and educating on the same in alignment with the characteristics of patients and their families, nonface-to-face virtual visits need to show more potential as an effective patient-centered treatment strategy based on more research and advanced practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interactive Journal of Medical Research\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"e43572\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10686251/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interactive Journal of Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/43572\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/43572","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,世界各地的医疗机构实施了限制患者出诊的政策,并正在使用替代通信技术进行出诊。这种转变还要求使用平台来防止这些限制带来的负面影响。目的:本综述的目的是全面探讨非面对面就诊作为感染预防的一种替代方法,并综合其利弊的科学证据。方法:通过PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane和Web of Science电子数据库进行综合检索;临床试验注册ClinicalTrials.gov中未发表的试验;和弗吉尼亚·亨德森国际护理图书馆,截止到2021年9月10日。检索查询是根据《电子检索策略同行评议》的指导方针开发的,包括远程医疗和访问限制等主题的关键词。纳入标准是在医院环境中与家庭进行远程医疗的非面对面模式、实验和观察性研究以及用英语撰写的文章。排除标准的全文无法获得,与患者或家庭参与无关,主要集中在研究方案上,或仅讨论远程医疗的利弊。结果:总体而言,由于面对面访问的限制,患者家属经历了情绪困扰。非面对面的虚拟访问弥补了这些限制,对降低患者和家属的感染风险有积极作用。这进一步鼓励了心理和身体的恢复,减少了心理困扰。然而,非面对面的虚拟技术并不能取代现实家庭的存在,网络和设备的技术问题被报道为限制。结论:基于更多的研究和先进的实践,确保技术的可用性和教育与患者及其家属的特点相一致,非面对面的虚拟访问需要显示出更多的潜力,作为一种有效的以患者为中心的治疗策略。
Nonface-to-Face Visitation to Restrict Patient Visits for Infection Control: Integrative Review.
Background: In the COVID-19 pandemic, a visit restriction policy for patients has been implemented in medical institutions worldwide and visits are being made using alternative communication technologies. This shift has also required the use of platforms to prevent negative consequences of these restrictions.
Objective: The purpose of this review was to comprehensively explore nonface-to-face visits as an alternative during infection prevention and to synthesize the scientific evidence of their benefits and disadvantages.
Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted via the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science electronic databases; unpublished trials in the clinical trials register ClinicalTrials.gov; and Virginia Henderson International Nursing Library up to September 10, 2021. The search query was developed according to the guidelines of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies and included keywords on the topics of telemedicine and visitation restrictions. The inclusion criteria were a nonface-to-face modality using telemedicine with family in a hospital setting, experimental and observational studies, and articles written in English. The exclusion criteria were inaccessible in full text, not related to patient or family involvement, mainly focused on the study protocol, or only discussing the pros and cons of telemedicine.
Results: Overall, patients' families experienced emotional distress due to restrictions on face-to-face visits. Nonface-to-face virtual visits compensating for these restrictions had a positive effect on reducing the risk of infection to the patient and the family. This further encouraged psychological and physical recovery and decreased psychological distress. However, nonface-to-face virtual technology could not replace the existence of actual families, and technical problems with networks and devices are reported as limitations.
Conclusions: Ensuring the availability of technology and educating on the same in alignment with the characteristics of patients and their families, nonface-to-face virtual visits need to show more potential as an effective patient-centered treatment strategy based on more research and advanced practice.