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 systematic review of compositional data analysis studies examining associations between sleep, sedentary behaviour, and physical activity with health outcomes in adults.

This systematic review determined if the composition of time spent in movement behaviours (i.e., sleep, sedentary behaviour (SED), light physical activity, and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA)) is associated with health in adults. Five electronic databases were searched in August 2019. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed, examined community-dwelling adults, and used compositional data analysis to examine the associations between the composition of time spent in movement behaviours and health outcomes. Eight studies (7 cross-sectional, 1 prospective cohort) of >12 000 unique participants were included. Findings indicated that the 24-h movement behaviour composition was associated with all-cause mortality (1 of 1 analyses), adiposity (4 of 4 analyses), and cardiometabolic biomarkers (8 of 15 analyses). Reallocating time into MVPA from other movement behaviours was associated with favourable changes to most health outcomes and taking time out of SED and reallocating it into other movement behaviours was associated with favourable changes to all-cause mortality. The quality of evidence was very low for all health outcomes. In conclusion, these findings support the notion that the composition of movement across the entire 24-h day matters, and that recommendations for sleep, SED, and physical activity should be combined into a single public health guideline. (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42019121641.) Novelty The 24-h movement behaviour composition is associated with a variety of health outcomes. Reallocating time into MVPA is favourably associated with health. Reallocating time out of SED is associated with favourable changes to mortality risk.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomized, sham-controlled pilot trial with blinded outcome assessment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to compare neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) vs sham on leg strength at hospital discharge in mechanically ventilated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized pilot study of NMES vs sham applied to 3 bilateral lower extremity muscle groups for 60 minutes daily in the intensive care unit (ICU). Between June 2008 and March 2013, we enrolled adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation within the first week of ICU stay and who could transfer independently from bed to chair before hospital admission. The primary outcome was lower extremity muscle strength at hospital discharge using Medical Research Council score (maximum, 30). Secondary outcomes at hospital discharge included walking distance and change in lower extremity strength from ICU awakening. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00709124. RESULTS: We stopped enrollment early after 36 patients due to slow patient accrual and the end of research funding. For NMES vs sham, mean (SD) lower extremity strength was 28 (2) vs 27 (3), P = .072. Among secondary outcomes, NMES vs sham patients had a greater mean (SD) walking distance (514 [389] vs 251 [210] ft, P = .050) and increase in muscle strength (5.7 [5.1] vs 1.8 [2.7], P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot randomized trial, NMES did not significantly improve leg strength at hospital discharge. Significant improvements in secondary outcomes require investigation in future research.

Barriers and facilitators of thromboprophylaxis for medical-surgical intensive care unit patients: a multicenter survey.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify the self-reported barriers to and facilitators of prescribing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We conducted an interviewer-administered survey of 4 individuals per ICU (the ICU director, a bedside pharmacist, a thromboprophylaxis research coordinator, and physician site investigator) regarding LMWH thromboprophylaxis for medical-surgical patients in 27 ICUs in Canada and the United States. Items were generated by the research team and adapted from previous surveys, audits, qualitative studies, and quality improvement research. Respondents rated the barriers to LMWH use, facilitators (effectiveness, affordability, and acceptability thereof), and perceptions regarding LMWH use. RESULTS: Respondents had 14.5 (SD, 7.7) years of ICU experience (response rate, 99%). The 5 most common barriers in descending order were as follows: drug acquisition cost, fear of bleeding, lack of resident education, concern about bioaccumulation in renal failure, and habit. The top 5 rated facilitators were preprinted orders, education, daily reminders, audit and feedback, and local quality improvement committee endorsement. Centers using preprinted orders (mean difference [P<.01]) and computerized physician order entry (P<.01) compared with those centers not using those tools reported higher affordability for these 2 facilitators. Compared with physicians and pharmacists, research coordinators considered ICU-specific audit and feedback of thromboprophylaxis rates to be a more effective, acceptable, and affordable facilitator (odds ratio, 6.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-22.53; P<.01). Facilitator acceptability ratings were similar within centers but differed across centers (P≤.01). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter survey found several barriers to use of LMWH including cost, concern about bleeding, and lack of resident knowledge of effectiveness. The diversity of reported facilitators suggests that large scale programs may address generic barriers but also need site-specific interprofessional knowledge translation activities.

Development of the AGREE II, part 2: assessment of validity of items and tools to support application.

BACKGROUND: We established a program of research to improve the development, reporting and evaluation of practice guidelines. We assessed the construct validity of the items and user's manual in the beta version of the AGREE II. METHODS: We designed guideline excerpts reflecting high-and low-quality guideline content for 21 of the 23 items in the tool. We designed two study packages so that one low-quality and one high-quality version of each item were randomly assigned to each package. We randomly assigned 30 participants to one of the two packages. Participants reviewed and rated the guideline content according to the instructions of the user's manual and completed a survey assessing the manual. RESULTS: In all cases, content designed to be of high quality was rated higher than low-quality content; in 18 of 21 cases, the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The manual was rated by participants as appropriate, easy to use, and helpful in differentiating guidelines of varying quality, with all scores above the mid-point of the seven-point scale. Considerable feedback was offered on how the items and manual of the beta-AGREE II could be improved. INTERPRETATION: The validity of the items was established and the user's manual was rated as highly useful by users. We used these results and those of our study presented in part 1 to modify the items and user's manual. We recommend AGREE II (available at www.agreetrust.org) as the revised standard for guideline development, reporting and evaluation.

Recruitment of multiple stakeholders to health services research: lessons from the front lines.

BACKGROUND: Self-administered surveys are an essential methodological tool for health services and knowledge translation research, and engaging end-users of the research is critical. However, few documented accounts of the efforts invested in recruitment of multiple different stakeholders to one health services research study exist. Here, we highlight the challenges of recruiting key stakeholders (policy-makers, clinicians, guideline developers) to a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funded health services research (HSR) study aimed to develop an updated and refined version of a guideline appraisal tool, the AGREE. METHODS: Using evidence-based methods of recruitment, our goal was to recruit 192 individuals: 80 international guideline developers, 80 Canadian clinicians and 32 Canadian policy/decision-makers. We calculated the participation rate and the recruitment efficiency. RESULTS: We mailed 873 invitation letters. Of 838 approached, our participation rate was 29%(240) and recruitment efficiency, 19%(156). One policy-maker manager did not allow policy staff to participate in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results from this study, we suggest that future studies aiming to engage similar stakeholders in HSR over sample by at least 5 times to achieve their target sample size and allow for participant withdrawals. We need continued efforts to communicate the value of research between researchers and end-users of research (policy-makers, clinicians, and other researchers), integration of participatory research strategies, and promotion of the value of end-user involvement in research. Future research to understand methods of improving recruitment efficiency and engaging key stakeholders in HSR is warranted.