Evidence-informed consensus statements to guide COVID-19 patient visitation policies: results from a national stakeholder meeting.

PURPOSE: Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs. METHODS: We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies. RESULTS: Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews). CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

A National Modified Delphi Consensus Process to Prioritize Experiences and Interventions for Antipsychotic Medication Deprescribing Among Adult Patients With Critical Illness.

Antipsychotic medications are frequently prescribed to critically ill patients leading to their continuation at transitions of care thereafter. The aim of this study was to generate evidence-informed consensus statements with key stakeholders on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing for ICU patients. DESIGN: We completed three rounds of surveys in a National modified Delphi consensus process. During rounds 1 and 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 9-strongly agree) to rate perceptions related to antipsychotic prescribing (i.e., experiences regarding delivery of patient care), knowledge and frequency of antipsychotic use, knowledge surrounding antipsychotic guideline recommendations, and strategies (i.e., interventions addressing current antipsychotic prescribing practices) for antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Consensus was defined as a median score of 1-3 or 7-9. During round 3, participants ranked statements on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies that achieved consensus (median score 7-9) using a weighted ranking scale (0-100 points) to determine priority. SETTING: Online surveys distributed across Canada. SUBJECTS: Fifty-seven stakeholders (physicians, nurses, pharmacists) who work with ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants prioritized six consensus statements on strategies for consideration when developing and implementing interventions to guide antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Statements focused on limiting antipsychotic prescribing to patients: 1) with hyperactive delirium, 2) at risk to themselves, their family, and/or staff due to agitation, and 3) whose care and treatment are being impacted due to agitation or delirium, and prioritizing 4) communication among staff about antipsychotic effectiveness, 5) direct and efficient communication tools on antipsychotic deprescribing at transitions of care, and 6) medication reconciliation at transitions of care. CONCLUSIONS: We engaged diverse stakeholders to generate evidence-informed consensus statements regarding antipsychotic prescribing perceptions and practices that can be used to implement interventions to promote antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies for ICU patients with and following critical illness.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions.

BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) a global pandemic. We sought to understand impact of COVID-19 on learner wellness at a large tertiary care academic institution to inform the future development of learner wellness interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, internet-based survey collected quantitative and qualitative data from learners April-June 2020. Descriptive statistics and univariate analyses were reported for quantitative data. Open-ended, qualitative responses were analyzed deductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty percent of enrolled learners in that faculty of medicine (540/2741) participated including undergraduate [Bachelor's] students (25.7%), graduate [science] students (27.5%), undergraduate medical students (22.8%), and postgraduate resident physicians (23.5%). We found that learner wellness across all stages of training was negatively impacted and the ways in which learners were impacted varied as a result of their program's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Learners in health sciences and medical education report worsening well-being because of the programs and the systems in which they function with the added burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future interventions would benefit from a holistic framework of learner wellness while engaging in systems thinking to understand how individuals, programs and respective systems intersect. The importance of acknowledging equity, diversity and inclusion, fostering psychological safety and engaging learners as active participants in their journey during a pandemic and beyond are key elements in developing wellness interventions.

CONTEXTE: Le 11 mars 2020, l'Organisation mondiale de la santé a déclaré que le nouveau coronavirus SRAS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) était pandémique. Nous avons tenté de cerner l'impact de la COVID-19 sur le bien-être des apprenants dans un grand centre universitaire de soins tertiaires afin d'étayer le développement futur d'interventions en faveur du bien-être des apprenants en contexte de pandémie. MÉTHODES: Une enquête transversale par sondage en ligne, menée entre les mois d'avril et juin 2020, a permis de recueillir des données quantitatives et qualitatives auprès des apprenants. Des statistiques descriptives et des analyses univariées ont été présentées comme données quantitatives. Les réponses ouvertes, qualitatives, ont été analysées de manière déductive par le biais d'une analyse thématique. RÉSULTATS: Vingt pour cent des étudiants de la faculté de médecine (540/2741) ont participé, dont 25,7 % étaient inscrits au premier cycle (baccalauréat), 27,5 % au deuxième cycle (sciences), 22,8 % au premier cycle en médecine et 23,5 % étaient résidents. Nous avons constaté que la pandémie a négativement affecté le bien-être des apprenants à tous les niveaux de formation et que les effets précis sur les étudiants pouvaient varier en fonction de la réponse de leur programme à la situation sanitaire. CONCLUSIONS: Les étudiants en médecine et en sciences de la santé signalent une détérioration de leur bien-être liée aux programmes et aux systèmes dans lesquels ils évoluent, auxquels s'ajoute le fardeau supplémentaire de la pandémie de la COVID-19. Il conviendrait de définir les interventions futures sur la base d'un cadre holistique du bien-être des apprenants tout en adoptant une réflexion systémique pour appréhender l'entrecroisement entre individus, programmes et systèmes. Reconnaître l'importance de l'équité, de la diversité et de l'inclusion, favoriser la sécurité psychologique et assurer la participation active des apprenants dans leur parcours pendant la pandémie et au-delà, constituent des éléments clés dans l'élaboration d'interventions au profit de leur bien-être.

Wellness in medical education: definition and five domains for wellness among medical learners during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Problem: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) impacted medical learner well-being and serves as a unique opportunity to understand medical learner wellness. The authors designed a formal needs assessment to assess medical learners' perspectives regarding distress related to disrupted training environments. This Rapid Communication describes findings from a qualitative study which defined medical learner wellness and validated five wellness domains.Approach: We conducted follow-up telephone interviews to an online needs assessment survey to identify a learner definition for wellness and to validate five wellness domains, including social, mental, physical, intellectual, and occupational wellness. Using purposive and maximal variation sampling, 27 students were interviewed from July-August 2020. Thematic analysis was performed using a deductive thematic approach to qualitative analysis.Outcomes: Medical learners defined wellness as a general [holistic] sense of personal well-being - the opportunity to be and to do what they most need and value. Learners validated all five wellness domains for medical education. Learners acknowledged the need for an adoptable and adaptable holistic framework for wellness in medical education.Next steps: We recommend academic medical institutions consider learner wellness a key component of medical education to cultivate learners as a competent collective of self-reliant, scholarly experts. We encourage evaluation of wellness domains in diverse medical learner populations to identify feasible interventions potentially associated with improvements in medical learner wellness.

A Modified Delphi Process to Prioritize Experiences and Guidance Related to ICU Restricted Visitation Policies During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

To create evidence-based consensus statements for restricted ICU visitation policies to support critically ill patients, families, and healthcare professionals during current and future pandemics. DESIGN: Three rounds of a remote modified Delphi consensus process. SETTING: Online survey and virtual polling from February 2, 2021, to April 8, 2021. SUBJECTS: Stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, decision-makers) admitted to or working in Canadian ICUs during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During Round 1, key stakeholders used a 9-point Likert scale to rate experiences (1-not significant, 9-significant impact on patients, families, healthcare professionals, or patient- and family-centered care) and strategies (1-not essential, 9-essential recommendation for inclusion in the development of restricted visitation policies) and used a free-text box to capture experiences/strategies we may have missed. Consensus was achieved if the median score was 7-9 or 1-3. During Round 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale to re-rate experiences/strategies that did not meet consensus during Round 1 (median score of 4-6) and rate new items identified in Round 1. During Rounds 2 and 3, participants ranked items that reached consensus by order of importance (relative to other related items and experiences) using a weighted ranking system (0-100 points). Participants prioritized 11 experiences (e.g., variability of family's comfort with technology, healthcare professional moral distress) and developed 21 consensus statements (e.g., communicate policy changes to the hospital staff before the public, permit visitors at end-of-life regardless of coronavirus disease 2019 status, creating a clear definition for end-of-life) regarding restricted visitation policies. CONCLUSIONS: We have formulated evidence-informed consensus statements regarding restricted visitation policies informed by diverse stakeholders, which could enhance patient- and family-centered care during a pandemic.