A survey of pediatric intensive care unit clinician experience with restricted family presence during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Limiting family presence runs counter to the family-centred values of Canadian pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). This study explores how implementing and enforcing COVID-19-related restricted family presence (RFP) policies impacted PICU clinicians nationally. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, online, self-administered survey of Canadian PICU clinicians to assess experience and opinions of restrictions, moral distress (Moral Distress Thermometer, range 0-10), and mental health impacts (Impact of Event Scale [IES], range 0-75 and attributable stress [five-point Likert scale]). For analysis, we used descriptive statistics, multivariate regression modelling, and a general inductive approach for free text. RESULTS: Representing 17/19 Canadian PICUs, 368 of 388 respondents (94%) experienced RFP policies and were predominantly female (333/368, 91%), English speaking (338/368, 92%), and nurses (240/368, 65%). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) reported moral distress score was 4.5 (2.4) and was associated with perceived differential impact on families. The mean (SD) total IES score was 29.7 (10.5), suggesting moderate traumatic stress with 56% (176/317) reporting increased/significantly increased stress from restrictions related to separating families, denying access, and concern for family impacts. Incongruence between RFP policies/practices and PICU values was perceived by 66% of respondents (217/330). Most respondents (235/330, 71%) felt their opinions were not valued when implementing policies. Though respondents perceived that restrictions were implemented for the benefit of clinicians (252/332, 76%) and to protect families (236/315, 75%), 57% (188/332) disagreed that their RFP experience was mainly positive. CONCLUSION: Pediatric intensive care unit-based RFP rules, largely designed and implemented without bedside clinician input, caused increased psychological burden for clinicians, characterized as moderate moral distress and trauma triggered by perceived impacts on families.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Limiter la présence de la famille va à l'encontre des valeurs centrées sur la famille des unités de soins intensifs pédiatriques (USIP) canadiennes. Cette étude explore comment la mise en œuvre et l'application des politiques de restriction de la présence familiale liées à la COVID-19 ont eu une incidence sur les cliniciennes et cliniciens des USIP à l'échelle nationale. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené un sondage transversal, en ligne et auto-administré auprès des cliniciens et cliniciennes des USIP canadiennes afin d'évaluer leur expérience et opinions sur les restrictions, la détresse morale (thermomètre de détresse morale, intervalle de 0 à 10) et les impacts sur la santé mentale (échelle d'impact des événements [EIE], intervalle de 0 à 75, et le stress qui peut y être attribué [échelle de Likert à cinq points]). Pour l'analyse, nous avons utilisé des statistiques descriptives, une modélisation de régression multivariée et une analyse inductive générale pour le texte libre. RéSULTATS: Représentant 17/19 USIP canadiennes, 368 des 388 personnes répondantes (94 %) ont vécu des politiques de restriction de la présence familiale et étaient principalement des femmes (333/368, 91 %), anglophones (338/368, 92 %) et infirmières (240/368, 65 %). Le score moyen (écart type [ET]) rapporté de détresse morale était de 4,5 (2,4) et était associé à l'impact différentiel perçu sur les familles. Le score moyen (ET) total de l'EIE était de 29,7 (10,5), ce qui suggère un stress traumatique modéré, 56 % (176/317) des personnes répondantes déclarant une augmentation ou une augmentation significative du stress associé aux restrictions liées à la séparation des familles, au refus d'accès et à la préoccupation pour les impacts familiaux. L'incongruité entre les politiques et les pratiques de restriction des visites familiales et les valeurs des USIP était perçue par 66 % des personnes répondantes (217/330). La plupart (235/330, 71 %) estimaient que leurs opinions n'étaient pas prises en compte lors de la mise en œuvre de politiques. Bien que les répondant·es aient perçu que les restrictions avaient été mises en œuvre dans l'intérêt des cliniciens et cliniciennes (252/332, 76 %) et pour protéger les familles (236/315, 75 %), 57 % (188/332) n'étaient pas d'accord pour dire que leur expérience de la restriction des visites familiales était principalement positive. CONCLUSION: Les règles de restriction de la présence familiale dans les unités de soins intensifs pédiatriques, en grande partie conçues et mises en œuvre sans l'avis du personnel clinique au chevet des patient·es, ont entraîné une augmentation du fardeau psychologique pour le personnel clinique, caractérisée par une détresse morale modérée et un traumatisme déclenché par des répercussions perçues sur les familles.

Family presence in Canadian PICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods environmental scan of policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite their broad commitment to family-centred care, children's hospitals and associated pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) restricted family presence during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to describe family presence policies and practices in Canadian PICUs from March to May 2020, and their evolution by August to December 2020. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of family presence policies and restrictions in all 19 Canadian PICUs using 2 methods. We conducted a literature review of public-facing visitation policy documents in June 2020 using a standardized data extraction form. We also administered a cross-sectional survey of PICU leadership (managers and physician chiefs) between August and December 2020 by telephone or videoconferencing. We used inductive content analysis to code qualitative data, generating summative count data. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively. RESULTS: As part of the literature search, we collected 2 (12%) PICU-specific, 14 (82%) pediatric-specific and 1 (6%) hospital-wide visitation policy documents from the early pandemic. One policy document provided guidance on all of the policy elements sought; the number of enabled caregivers was not included in the documents for 7 of 19 units (37%). All 19 Canadian PICUs were represented among the 24 survey respondents (15 physician chiefs and 9 operations or clinical managers). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, all units allowed the presence of 2 or more family members. Early in the pandemic, reported practices limited the number of adult caregivers for patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection to 1 (n = 21/24, 88%) or 2 (n = 3/24, 12%); all units prohibited siblings. Some centres restricted caregivers from switching bedside presence with one another (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 16/23, 70%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 20/23, 87%); leaving their child's PICU room (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 1/24, 4%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 16/24, 67%); and joining in-person rounds (patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 9/22, 41%; patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: n = 17/22, 77%). All respondents endorsed policy exceptions during end-of-life care. Some reported policies and practices were adapted over the study period. INTERPRETATION: Early COVID-19-related family presence policies in Canadian PICUs varied among centres. Although some centres adapted policies and practices, this study revealed ongoing potential threats to family centred care at the mid-pandemic stage.

Striving for Optimum Noise-Decreasing Strategies in Critical Care: Initial Measurements and Observations.

To identify baseline sound levels, patterns of sound levels, and potential barriers and facilitators to sound level reduction. The study setting was neonatal and pediatric intensive care units in a tertiary care hospital. Participants were staff in both units and parents of currently hospitalized children or infants. One 24-hour sound measurements and one 4-hour sound measurement linked to observed sound events were conducted in each area of the center's neonatal intensive care unit. Two of each measurement type were conducted in the pediatric intensive care unit. Focus groups were conducted with parents and staff. Transcripts were analyzed with descriptive content analysis and themes were compared against results from quantitative measurements. Sound levels exceeded recommended standards at nearly every time point. The most common code was related to talking. Themes from focus groups included the critical care context and sound levels, effects of sound levels, and reducing sound levels-the way forward. Results are consistent with work conducted in other critical care environments. Staff and families realize that high sound levels can be a problem, but feel that the culture and context are not supportive of a quiet care space. High levels of ambient sound suggest that the largest changes in sound levels are likely to come from design and equipment purchase decisions. L10 and Lmax appear to be the best outcomes for measurement of behavioral interventions.