在COVID-19大流行期间,医生对限制性访客政策的看法:一项定性研究。

CMAJ open Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20220048
Kirsten Wentlandt, Kayla T Wolofsky, Andrea Weiss, Lindsay Hurlburt, Eddy Fan, Camilla Zimmermann, Sarina R Isenberg
{"title":"在COVID-19大流行期间,医生对限制性访客政策的看法:一项定性研究。","authors":"Kirsten Wentlandt,&nbsp;Kayla T Wolofsky,&nbsp;Andrea Weiss,&nbsp;Lindsay Hurlburt,&nbsp;Eddy Fan,&nbsp;Camilla Zimmermann,&nbsp;Sarina R Isenberg","doi":"10.9778/cmajo.20220048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Little is understood of the consequences of restrictive visitor policies that were implemented in hospitals to minimize risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to describe physician experiences with these policies and reflections of their effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semistructured phone interviews from September 2020 to March 2021 with physicians practising in Ontario hospitals, recruited via professional networks and snowball sampling. We audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed interviews to describe and interpret overarching themes by thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 21 physicians (5 intensivists, 5 internists, 11 specialists in palliative care). Four main thematic categories emerged, including provider, system, patient and caregiver effects. Provider-related factors included increased time and effort on communication with a need to establish limits; increased effort to develop rapport with caregivers; lack of caregiver input on patient care; the need to act as a caregiver surrogate; and the emotional toll of being a gatekeeper or advocate for visitors, exacerbated by lack of evidence for restrictions and inconsistent enforcement. System effects included the avoidance of hospital admission and decreased length of stay, leading to readmissions, increased deaths at home and avoidance of transfer to other facilities with similar policies. Patient-related factors included isolation and dying alone; lack of caregiver advocacy; and prioritization of visitor presence that, at times, resulted in a delay or withdrawal of aspects of care. Caregiver-related factors included inability to personally assess patient health, leading to poor understanding of patient status and challenging decision-making; perceived inadequate communication; difficulty accessing caregiver supports; and increased risk of complicated grief. Participants highlighted a disproportionate effect on older adults and people who did not speak English.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Our study highlights substantial negative consequences of restrictive visitor policies, with heightened effects on older adults and people who did not speak English. Research is required to identify whether the benefits of visitor restrictions on infection control outweigh the numerous deleterious consequences to patients, families and care providers.</p>","PeriodicalId":10432,"journal":{"name":"CMAJ open","volume":"11 1","pages":"E110-E117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/51/5f/cmajo.20220048.PMC9911125.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physician perceptions of restrictive visitor policies during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.\",\"authors\":\"Kirsten Wentlandt,&nbsp;Kayla T Wolofsky,&nbsp;Andrea Weiss,&nbsp;Lindsay Hurlburt,&nbsp;Eddy Fan,&nbsp;Camilla Zimmermann,&nbsp;Sarina R Isenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.9778/cmajo.20220048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Little is understood of the consequences of restrictive visitor policies that were implemented in hospitals to minimize risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to describe physician experiences with these policies and reflections of their effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semistructured phone interviews from September 2020 to March 2021 with physicians practising in Ontario hospitals, recruited via professional networks and snowball sampling. We audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed interviews to describe and interpret overarching themes by thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 21 physicians (5 intensivists, 5 internists, 11 specialists in palliative care). Four main thematic categories emerged, including provider, system, patient and caregiver effects. Provider-related factors included increased time and effort on communication with a need to establish limits; increased effort to develop rapport with caregivers; lack of caregiver input on patient care; the need to act as a caregiver surrogate; and the emotional toll of being a gatekeeper or advocate for visitors, exacerbated by lack of evidence for restrictions and inconsistent enforcement. System effects included the avoidance of hospital admission and decreased length of stay, leading to readmissions, increased deaths at home and avoidance of transfer to other facilities with similar policies. Patient-related factors included isolation and dying alone; lack of caregiver advocacy; and prioritization of visitor presence that, at times, resulted in a delay or withdrawal of aspects of care. Caregiver-related factors included inability to personally assess patient health, leading to poor understanding of patient status and challenging decision-making; perceived inadequate communication; difficulty accessing caregiver supports; and increased risk of complicated grief. Participants highlighted a disproportionate effect on older adults and people who did not speak English.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Our study highlights substantial negative consequences of restrictive visitor policies, with heightened effects on older adults and people who did not speak English. Research is required to identify whether the benefits of visitor restrictions on infection control outweigh the numerous deleterious consequences to patients, families and care providers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CMAJ open\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"E110-E117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/51/5f/cmajo.20220048.PMC9911125.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CMAJ open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20220048\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CMAJ open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20220048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","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,医院为尽量减少感染风险而实施的限制访客政策的后果鲜为人知。本研究的目的是描述医生的经验,这些政策和反映他们的影响。方法:从2020年9月至2021年3月,我们通过专业网络和滚雪球抽样对安大略省医院的执业医生进行了半结构化电话访谈。我们对采访进行录音、转录和分析,通过主题分析来描述和解释总体主题。结果:我们采访了21名医生(5名重症医师,5名内科医师,11名姑息治疗专家)。出现了四个主要主题类别,包括提供者、系统、患者和护理者的影响。与提供者有关的因素包括,沟通的时间和精力增加,需要确定限制;加强努力发展与照顾者的关系;缺乏护理人员对患者护理的投入;需要充当照顾者的代理人;作为看门人或游客维权者的情感代价,由于缺乏限制的证据和执法不一致而加剧。系统效应包括避免住院和缩短住院时间,导致再入院,增加在家死亡,避免转移到具有类似政策的其他设施。患者相关因素包括隔离和孤独死亡;缺乏照料者倡导;来访者的优先顺序有时会导致护理方面的延迟或撤回。与护理人员相关的因素包括无法亲自评估患者的健康状况,导致对患者状况的了解不足,难以做出决策;察觉到沟通不足;难以获得照顾者支持;也增加了复杂悲伤的风险。参与者强调,老年人和不会说英语的人受到的影响不成比例。解释:我们的研究强调了限制游客政策的实质性负面影响,对老年人和不会说英语的人的影响更大。需要进行研究,以确定访客限制对感染控制的好处是否超过对患者、家属和护理提供者的众多有害后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Physician perceptions of restrictive visitor policies during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

Background: Little is understood of the consequences of restrictive visitor policies that were implemented in hospitals to minimize risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to describe physician experiences with these policies and reflections of their effects.

Methods: We conducted semistructured phone interviews from September 2020 to March 2021 with physicians practising in Ontario hospitals, recruited via professional networks and snowball sampling. We audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed interviews to describe and interpret overarching themes by thematic analysis.

Results: We interviewed 21 physicians (5 intensivists, 5 internists, 11 specialists in palliative care). Four main thematic categories emerged, including provider, system, patient and caregiver effects. Provider-related factors included increased time and effort on communication with a need to establish limits; increased effort to develop rapport with caregivers; lack of caregiver input on patient care; the need to act as a caregiver surrogate; and the emotional toll of being a gatekeeper or advocate for visitors, exacerbated by lack of evidence for restrictions and inconsistent enforcement. System effects included the avoidance of hospital admission and decreased length of stay, leading to readmissions, increased deaths at home and avoidance of transfer to other facilities with similar policies. Patient-related factors included isolation and dying alone; lack of caregiver advocacy; and prioritization of visitor presence that, at times, resulted in a delay or withdrawal of aspects of care. Caregiver-related factors included inability to personally assess patient health, leading to poor understanding of patient status and challenging decision-making; perceived inadequate communication; difficulty accessing caregiver supports; and increased risk of complicated grief. Participants highlighted a disproportionate effect on older adults and people who did not speak English.

Interpretation: Our study highlights substantial negative consequences of restrictive visitor policies, with heightened effects on older adults and people who did not speak English. Research is required to identify whether the benefits of visitor restrictions on infection control outweigh the numerous deleterious consequences to patients, families and care providers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Validity of diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canadian administrative health data: a multiprovince, population-based cohort study. Trends in attachment to a primary care provider in Ontario, 2008-2018: an interrupted time-series analysis. Identifying clusters of coexisting conditions and outcomes among adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia: a multicentre cohort study. Is the number of ideal cardiovascular health metrics in midlife associated with lower risk of cancer? Evidence from 3 European prospective cohorts. Trends in antihypertensive drug utilization in British Columbia, 2004-2019: a descriptive study.
×
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