Integrating Social Determinants of Health in Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOHs) mediate outcomes of critical illness. Increasingly, professional organizations recommend screening for social risks. Yet, how clinicians should identify and then incorporate SDOHs into acute care practice is poorly defined. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do medical ICU clinicians currently operationalize SDOHs within patient care, given that SDOHs are known to mediate outcomes of critical illness? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using ethnographic methods, we observed clinical work rounds in three urban ICUs within a single academic health system to capture use of SDOHs during clinical care. Adults admitted to the medical ICU with respiratory failure were enrolled prospectively sequentially. Observers wrote field notes and narrative excerpts from rounding observations. We also reviewed electronic medical record documentation for up to 90 days after ICU admission. We then qualitatively coded and triangulated data using a constructivist grounded theory approach and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthy People SDOHs framework. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled and > 200 h of observation of clinical work rounds were included in the analysis. ICU clinicians infrequently integrated social structures of patients' lives into their discussions. Social structures were invoked most frequently when related to: (1) causes of acute respiratory failure, (2) decisions regarding life-sustaining therapies, and (3) transitions of care. Data about common SDOHs were not collected in any systematic way (eg, food and housing insecurity), and some SDOHs were discussed rarely or never (eg, access to education, discrimination, and incarceration). INTERPRETATION: We found that clinicians do not incorporate many areas of known SDOHs into ICU rounds. Improvements in integration of SDOHs should leverage the multidisciplinary team, identifying who is best suited to collect information on SDOHs during different time points in critical illness. Next steps include clinician-focused, patient-focused, and caregiver-focused assessments of feasibility and acceptability of an ICU-based SDOHs assessment.

Use of tobacco during COVID-19: A qualitative study among medically underserved individuals.

The COVID-19 pandemic produced stress for people around the world. The perception that tobacco can be a coping tool for stress relief suggests that the conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic can provide insight into the relationship between stress and tobacco use patterns, particularly among those most at risk for severe COVID-19 disease. The goal was to identify the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on tobacco use and preparedness for smoking cessation among individuals who smoke and are older and medically underserved. We conducted in-depth interviews with 39 patients to learn about individuals' smoking behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a modified grounded theory approach to code and analyze all qualitative data. We conducted thematic analysis to identify key factors associated with smoking behaviors during COVID-19. Our results indicated that increases in perceived stress and social isolation may have been associated with increased tobacco use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic-related social isolation contributed to increases in smoking, despite respondents being concerned about the severity of COVID-19. While many respondents felt that smoking relieved their stress from the pandemic, they appeared unaware of the stress-inducing properties of tobacco use. Our findings indicate that pandemic-related stress impacted smoking behavior among older, medically underserved smokers. Results may assist clinicians in addressing the role of tobacco use in response to highly stressful events. Smoking cessation strategies should consider the implications of stress on smoking behavior, including smoking relapse in response to highly stressful events-particularly for medically underserved populations.

Looking to "Level the Field": A Qualitative Study of How Clinicians Operationalize Social Determinants in Critical Care.

INTRODUCTION: Current critical care practice does not integrate social determinants of health (SDOH) in systematic or standardized ways. Routine assessment of SDOH in the intensive care unit (ICU) may improve clinical decision-making, patient- and family-centered outcomes, and clinician well-being. Given the appropriateness and feasibility of SDOH assessment in the ICU is unknown, we aimed to understand how ICU clinicians think about and use SDOH. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians focused on barriers to and facilitators of assessing SDOH during critical illness and perceptions on screening for SDOH in the ICU. We used chart-stimulated recall to assist clinicians in reflecting on how SDOH applied to and was used in patients' care. After deidentifying interviews, we analyzed transcripts guided by a thematic analysis approach using a combination of inductive and deductive coding, the latter framed within the Centers for Disease Control SDOH Healthy People framework. RESULTS: We completed interviews with 30 clinicians, in a variety of professional roles. The majority of clinicians self-identified as men (17, 56.7%) of White race (25, 83.3%). Clinicians contextualize their use of SDOH within three frames of reference: 1) their own identity and experiences; 2) their relationships and communication with patients and caregivers; and 3) immediate structures of care around ICU patients including clinician advocacy, care transitions, and readmission. Clinicians identified that discussing SDOH could allow them to recognize bias faced by their patients, elucidate drivers of critical illness, and navigate communication with patients caregivers. Clinicians worried about ICU-specific factors impeding the discussion of SDOH including time contraints and acuity, high stakes and emotions, and negative anticipatory emotions. DISCUSSION: Clinicians gather SDOH during critical illness both to understand their patients' stories and provide individualized care, which may lead to better clinician satisfaction and patient- and family-centered care outcomes. Educational and operational efforts to increase SDOH assessment and use in critical care should also gather and integrate the perspectives of patients and caregivers regarding the collection and use of SDOH in the ICU.

Clinicians' Use of Choice Framing in ICU Family Meetings.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the frequency and patterns of clinicians' use of choice frames when discussing preference-sensitive care with surrogate decision-makers in the ICU. DESIGN: Secondary sequential content analysis. SETTING: One hundred one audio-recorded and transcribed conferences between surrogates and clinicians of incapacitated, critically ill adults from a prospective, multicenter cohort study. SUBJECTS: Surrogate decision-makers and clinicians. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four coders identified preference-sensitive decision episodes addressed in the meetings, including topics such as mechanical ventilation, renal replacement, and overall goals of care. Prior critical care literature provided specific topics identified as preference-sensitive specific to the critical care context. Coders then examined each decision episode for the types of choice frames used by clinicians. The choice frames were selected a priori based on decision science literature. In total, there were 202 decision episodes across the 101 transcripts, with 20.3% of the decision episodes discussing mechanical ventilation, 19.3% overall goals of care, 14.4% renal replacement therapy, 14.4% post-discharge care (i.e., discharge location such as a skilled nursing facility), and the remaining 32.1% other topics. Clinicians used default framing, in which an option is presented that will be carried out if another option is not actively chosen, more frequently than any other choice frame (127 or 62.9% of decision episodes). Clinicians presented a polar interrogative, or a "yes or no question" to accept or reject a specific care choice, in 43 (21.3%) decision episodes. Clinicians more frequently presented options emphasizing both potential losses and gains rather than either in isolation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently use default framing and polar questions when discussing preference-sensitive choices with surrogate decision-makers, which are known to be powerful nudges. Future work should focus on designing interventions promoting the informed use of these and the other most common choice frames used by practicing clinicians.

Youth Caregivers of Adults in the United States: Prevalence and the Association Between Caregiving and Education.

A growing proportion of individuals adopt family caregiving roles. Family caregivers are the primary providers of long-term care in the United States yet limited federal policy supports exist, despite the known negative impacts of caregiving. There is also limited information about the prevalence of youth/young adult caregivers and the impacts of caregiving at formative ages in the United States. Our objective is to estimate the prevalence of youth caregivers and examine the association of caregiving with educational investments. We use the American Time Use Survey (2013-2019) to identify and describe youth caregivers (aged 15-18) and young adult caregivers (aged 19-22) and compare them with non-caregiving peers. We estimate that there are approximately 1,623,000 youth caregivers and 1,986,000 young adult caregivers, corresponding to 9.2% and 12.7% of these age groups, respectively. However, there is a wide range in the estimated prevalence per year, from approximately 364,000 to 2.8 million youth caregivers and from 353,000 to 2.2 million young adult caregivers, depending on caregiver definition. Unlike adult caregivers, we find that young men and women were nearly equally likely to provide care. We also find that non-White individuals are disproportionately represented as youth caregivers. Compared with non-caregiving peers, both youth and young adult caregivers are less likely to be enrolled in school and, among those enrolled in school, spend significantly less time on educational activities. Considering the association of caregiving among youth/young adults and education, policies supporting youth and young adult caregivers are critical.

Self-identified rurality in a nationally representative population in the US.

INTRODUCTION: In the US, health services research most often relies on Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) classification codes to measure rurality. This measure is known to misrepresent rurality and does not rely on individual experiences of rurality associated with healthcare inequities. We aimed to determine a patient-centered RUCA-based definition of rurality. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we conducted an online survey asking US residents, 'Do you live in a rural area?' and the rationale for their answer. We evaluated the concordance between their self-identified rurality and their ZIP code-derived RUCA designation of rurality by calculating Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic and percent agreement. RESULTS: Of the 774 participants, 456 (58.9%) and 318 (41.1%) individuals had conventional urban and rural RUCA classifications, respectively. There was only moderate agreement between perceived rurality and rural RUCA classification (κ=0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.42-0.54). Among people living within RUCA 2-3 defined urban areas (n=51), percent agreement was only 19.6%. Discordance was driven by their perception of the population density, proximity to the nearest neighbor, proximity to a metropolitan area, and the number of homes in their area. Based on our results, we reclassified RUCA 2-3 designations as rural, resulting in an increase in overall concordance (κ=0.56; 95%CI=0.50-0.62). DISCUSSION: Patient-centered rural-urban classification is required to effectively evaluate the impact of rurality on health disparities. This study presents a more patient-centric RUCA-based classification of rurality that can be easily operationalized in future research in situations in which self-reported rural status is missing or challenging to obtain. CONCLUSION: Reclassification of RUCA 2-3 as rural represents a more patient-centric definition of rurality.

Achieving Goals of Care Decisions in Chronic Critical Illness: A Multi-Institutional Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Physicians, patients, and families alike perceive a need to improve how goals of care (GOC) decisions occur in chronic critical illness (CCI), but little is currently known about this decision-making process. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do intensivists from various health systems facilitate decision-making about GOC for patients with CCI? What are barriers to, and facilitators of, this decision-making process? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of intensivists from the United States and Canada using a mental models approach adapted from decision science. We analyzed transcripts inductively using qualitative description. RESULTS: We interviewed 29 intensivists from six institutions. Participants across all sites described GOC decision-making in CCI as a complex, longitudinal, and iterative process that involved substantial preparatory work, numerous stakeholders, and multiple family meetings. Intensivists required considerable time to collect information on prior events and conversations, and to arrive at a prognostic consensus with other involved physicians prior to meeting with families. Many intensivists stressed the importance of scheduling multiple family meetings to build trust and relationships prior to explicitly discussing GOC. Physician-identified barriers to GOC decision-making included 1-week staffing models, limited time and cognitive bandwidth, difficulty eliciting patient values, and interpersonal challenges with care team members or families. Potential facilitators included scheduled family meetings at regular intervals, greater interprofessional involvement in decisions, and consistent messaging from care team members. INTERPRETATION: Intensivists described a complex time- and labor-intensive group process to achieve GOC decision-making in CCI. System-level interventions that improve how information is shared between physicians and decrease logistical and relational barriers to timely and consistent communication are key to improving GOC decision-making in CCI.

Nudging During Pediatric Intensive Care Conferences With Family Members: Retrospective Analysis of Transcripts From a Single-Center, 2015-2019.

OBJECTIVES: Nudging, a behavioral economics concept, subtly influences decision-making without coercion or limiting choice. Despite its frequent use, the specific application of nudging techniques by clinicians in shared decision-making (SDM) is understudied. Our aim was to analyze clinicians' use of nudging in a curated dataset of family care conferences in the PICU. DESIGN: Between 2019 and 2020, we retrospectively studied and coded 70 previously recorded care conference transcripts that involved physicians and families from 2015 to 2019. We focused on decision-making discussions examining instances of nudging, namely salience, framing, options, default, endowment, commission, omission, recommend, expert opinion, certainty, and social norms. Nudging instances were categorized by decision type, including tracheostomy, goals of care, or procedures. SETTING: Single-center quaternary pediatric facility with general and cardiac ICUs. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed the pattern and frequency of nudges in each transcript. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three of the 70 transcripts contained SDM episodes. These episodes represented a total of 11 decision categories based on the subject matter of nudging instances, with 308 decision episodes across all transcripts (median [interquartile range] 5 [4-6] per conference). Tracheostomy was the most frequently discussed decision. A total of 1096 nudging instances were identified across the conferences, with 8 (6-10) nudge types per conference. The most frequent nudging strategy used was gain frame (203/1096 [18.5%]), followed by loss frame (150/1096 [13.7%]). CONCLUSIONS: Nudging is routinely employed by clinicians to guide decision-making, primarily through gain or loss framing. This retrospective analysis aids in understanding nudging in care conferences: it offers insight into potential risks and benefits of these techniques; it highlights ways in which their application has been used by caregivers; and it may be a resource for future trainee curriculum development.

Accuracy of Expected Symptoms and Subsequent Quality of Life Measures Among Adults With COPD.

Importance: Patients' expectations for future health guide their decisions and enable them to prepare, adapt, and cope. However, little is known about how inaccurate expectations may affect patients' illness outcomes. Objective: To assess the association between patients' expectation inaccuracies and health-related quality of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was conducted from 2017 to 2021, which included a 24-month follow-up period. Eligible participants received outpatient primary care at pulmonary clinics of a single large US health system. Data were analyzed between 2021 and 2023. Exposure: Expectation accuracy, measured by comparing patients' self-reported expectations of their symptom burden with their actual physical and emotional symptoms 3, 12, and 24 months in the future. Main Outcome and Measure: Health-related quality of life, measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD at 3, 12, and 24 months. Results: A total of 207 participants were included (median age, 65.5 years [range, 42.0-86.0 years]; 120 women [58.0%]; 118 Black [57.0%], 79 White [38.2%]). The consent rate among approached patients was 80.0%. Most patients reported no or only limited discussions of future health and symptom burdens with their clinicians. Across physical and emotional symptoms and all 3 time points, patients' expectations were more optimistic than their experiences. There were no consistent patterns of measured demographic or behavioral characteristics associated with expectation accuracy. Regression models revealed that overoptimistic expectations of future burdens of dyspnea (linear regression estimate, 4.68; 95% CI, 2.68 to 6.68) and negative emotions (linear regression estimate, -3.04; 95% CI, -4.78 to 1.29) were associated with lower health-related quality of life at 3 months after adjustment for baseline health-related quality of life, forced expiratory volume over 1 second, and interval clinical events (P < .001 for both). Similar patterns were observed at 12 months (dyspnea: linear regression estimate, 2.41; 95% CI, 0.45 to 4.37) and 24 months (negative emotions: linear regression estimate, -2.39; 95% CI, -4.67 to 0.12; dyspnea: linear regression estimate, 3.21; 95% CI, 0.82 to 5.60), although there was no statistically significant association between expectation of negative emotions and quality of life at 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with COPD, we found that patients are overoptimistic in their expectations about future negative symptom burdens, and such inaccuracies were independently associated with worse well-being over time. Developing and implementing strategies to improve patients' symptom expectations may improve patient-centered outcomes.

Associations of Race With Sedation Depth Among Mechanically Ventilated Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of race with proportion of time in deep sedation among mechanically ventilated adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from October 2017 to December 2019. SETTING: Five hospitals within a single health system. PATIENTS: Adult patients who identified race as Black or White who were mechanically ventilated for greater than or equal to 24 hours in one of 12 medical, surgical, cardiovascular, cardiothoracic, or mixed ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The exposure was White compared with Black race. The primary outcome was the proportion of time in deep sedation during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale values of -3 to -5. For the primary analysis, we performed mixed-effects linear regression models including ICU as a random effect, and adjusting for age, sex, English as preferred language, body mass index, Elixhauser comorbidity index, Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score, Version 2, ICU admission source, admission for a major surgical procedure, and the presence of septic shock. Of the 3337 included patients, 1242 (37%) identified as Black, 1367 (41%) were female, and 1002 (30%) were admitted to a medical ICU. Black patients spent 48% of the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation in deep sedation, compared with 43% among White patients in unadjusted analysis. After risk adjustment, Black race was significantly associated with more time in early deep sedation (mean difference, 5%; 95% CI, 2-7%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There are disparities in sedation during the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation between Black and White patients across a diverse set of ICUs. Future work is needed to determine the clinical significance of these findings, given the known poorer outcomes for patients who experience early deep sedation.

Education for Tobacco Use Disorder Treatment: Current State, Evidence, and Unmet Needs.

Background: Tobacco use is undertreated in the medical setting. One driver may be inadequate tobacco use disorder treatment (TUDT) training for clinicians in specialties treating tobacco-dependent patients. Objective: We sought to evaluate the current state of TUDT training for diverse professionals and how these skills are assessed in credentialing exams. Methods: We performed a focused review of current educational practices, evidence-based strategies, and accreditation exam contents focused on TUDT. Results: Among medical students, participants in reviewed studies reported anywhere from 45 minutes to 3 hours of TUDT training throughout their 4-year programs, most often in the form of didactic sessions. Similarly, little TUDT training was reported at the post-graduate (residency, fellowship, continuing medical education) levels, and reported training was typically delivered as time-based (expected hours of instruction) rather than competency-based (demonstration of mastery) learning. Multiple studies evaluated effective TUDT curricula at varied stages of training. More effective curricula incorporated longitudinal sessions and active learning, such as standardized patient encounters or proctored patient visits. Knowledge of TUDT is minimally evaluated on certification exams. For example, the American Board of Internal Medicine blueprint lists TUDT as <2% of one subtopic on both the internal medicine and pulmonary exams. Conclusion: TUDT training for most clinicians is minimal, does not assess competency, and is minimally evaluated on certification exams. Effective, evidence-based TUDT training incorporating active learning should be integrated into medical education at all levels, with attention paid to inclusion on subsequent certifying exams.

Deception, honesty, and professionalism: A persistent challenge in modern medicine.

Honesty and deception have unique antecedents and consequences within the context of healthcare, relative to other social contexts. While modern professional standards emphasize honesty and avoidance of deception as paramount, empirical work from clinical practice settings reveal that deception remains widespread. This paper provides an overview of the current theoretical and scientific evidence regarding the use and potential consequences of deception of patients by clinicians. This includes the evolving professional standards and the roles of therapeutic dishonesty, collaborative deception, truth and trust in medicine, informed consent, and the outcomes of deception.

Comparing Smoking Cessation Interventions among Underserved Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic Trial Protocol.

Smoking burdens are greatest among underserved patients. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces mortality among individuals at risk for smoking-associated lung cancer. Although LCS programs must offer smoking cessation support, the interventions that best promote cessation among underserved patients in this setting are unknown. This stakeholder-engaged, pragmatic randomized clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of four interventions promoting smoking cessation among underserved patients referred for LCS. By using an additive study design, all four arms provide standard "ask-advise-refer" care. Arm 2 adds free or subsidized pharmacologic cessation aids, arm 3 adds financial incentives up to $600 for cessation, and arm 4 adds a mobile device-delivered episodic future thinking tool to promote attention to long-term health goals. We hypothesize that smoking abstinence rates will be higher with the addition of each intervention when compared with arm 1. We will enroll 3,200 adults with LCS orders at four U.S. health systems. Eligible patients include those who smoke at least one cigarette daily and self-identify as a member of an underserved group (i.e., is Black or Latinx, is a rural resident, completed a high school education or less, and/or has a household income <200% of the federal poverty line). The primary outcome is biochemically confirmed smoking abstinence sustained through 6 months. Secondary outcomes include abstinence sustained through 12 months, other smoking-related clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial will identify the most effective smoking cessation strategies that LCS programs can implement to reduce smoking burdens affecting underserved populations. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04798664). Date of registration: March 12, 2021. Date of trial launch: May 17, 2021.

Stakeholders' Views on Reducing Psychological Distress in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

CONTEXT: Psychological distress is highly prevalent among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the top palliative care priority identified by such patients, and associated with poor outcomes. However, patients with COPD rarely receive care for psychological distress. OBJECTIVES: To identify the barriers and opportunities to reducing psychological distress among patients with COPD in the specialty pulmonary setting. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews based on Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs with key stakeholders at two pulmonary clinics, including clinicians, staff, patients, and caregivers. We focused on the relevance, identification, and management of psychological distress in COPD care. We identified emergent patterns and concepts, developed and applied codes to the text, and examined the content in each code to identify key themes. RESULTS: Thirty-one stakeholders participated in interviews (RR=64.6%). Nearly all pulmonary clinicians felt that psychological well-being was a critical, unmet patient need. Yet, most pulmonary clinicians reported that they lacked sufficient training and available resources to support patients, prioritized physical symptoms and medication management over emotional concerns, and perceived limited cultural support for such efforts in the pulmonary clinic setting. Patient and caregiver participants desired integration and prioritization of care addressing psychological distress into routine pulmonary care. CONCLUSION: Mitigating psychological distress is a palliative care priority in COPD. Integrating efficient, effective resources, such as tools or programs that address psychological distress, into pulmonary clinic settings serving a high volume of patients with COPD may improve the provision of supportive care to patients typically underserved by specialty palliative care.

Content and Communication of Inpatient Family Visitation Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Sequential Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient health care facilities restricted inpatient visitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no existing evidence of how they communicated these policies to the public nor the impact of their communication choices on public perception. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe patterns of inpatient visitation policies during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and the communication of these policies to the general public, as well as to identify communication strategies that maximize positive impressions of the facility despite visitation restrictions. METHODS: We conducted a sequential, exploratory, mixed methods study including a qualitative analysis of COVID-19 era visitation policies published on Pennsylvania-based facility websites, as captured between April 30 and May 20, 2020 (ie, during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States). We also conducted a factorial survey-based experiment to test how key elements of hospitals' visitation policy communication are associated with individuals' willingness to seek care in October 2020. For analysis of the policies, we included all inpatient facilities in Pennsylvania. For the factorial experiment, US adults were drawn from internet research panels. The factorial survey-based experiment presented composite policies that varied in their justification for restricted visitation, the degree to which the facility expressed ownership of the policy, and the inclusion of family-centered care support plans. Our primary outcome was participants' willingness to recommend the hypothetical facility using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: We identified 104 unique policies on inpatient visitation from 363 facilities' websites. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the policies was 14.2. Most policies prohibited family presence (99/104, 95.2%). Facilities justified the restricted visitation policies on the basis of community protection (59/104, 56.7%), authorities' guidance or regulations (34/104, 32.7%), or scientific rationale (23/104, 22.1%). A minority (38/104, 36.5%) addressed how restrictive visitation may impair family-centered care. Most of the policies analyzed used passive voice to communicate restrictions. A total of 1321 participants completed the web-based survey. Visitation policy elements significantly associated with willingness to recommend the facility included justifications based on community protection (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.24-1.68) or scientific rationale (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51), rather than those based on a governing authority. The facility expressed a high degree of ownership over the decision (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29), rather than a low degree of ownership; and inclusion of family-centered care support plans (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.51-3.12), rather than no such support. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems can immediately improve public receptiveness of restrictive visitation policies by emphasizing community protection, ownership over the facility's policy, and promoting family-centered care.

Family Presence for Critically Ill Patients During a Pandemic.

Family engagement is a key component of high-quality critical care, with known benefits for patients, care teams, and family members themselves. The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid enactment of prohibitions or restrictions on visitation that now persist, particularly for patients with COVID-19. Reevaluation of these policies in response to advances in knowledge and resources since the early pandemic is critical because COVID-19 will continue to be a public health threat for months to years, and future pandemics are likely. This article reviews rationales and evidence for restricting or permitting family members' physical presence and provides broad guidance for health care systems to develop and implement policies that maximize benefit and minimize risk of family visitation during COVID-19 and future similar public health crises.