Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34391628›Full record

ArticleIntensive & critical care nursing2022

Conditions and strategies to meet the challenges imposed by the COVID-19-related visiting restrictions in the intensive care unit: A Scandinavian cross-sectional study.

Hanne Irene Jensen, Eva Åkerman, Ranveig Lind, Hanne Birgit Alfheim, Gro Frivold, Isabell Fridh, Anne Sophie Ågård

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive & critical care nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hanne Irene JensenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Kolding Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark; Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: hanne.irene.jensen@rsyd.dk.
Eva ÅkermanDepartment of Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden; Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ranveig LindDepartment of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway; Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Hanne Birgit AlfheimFaculty of Health, VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway.
Gro FrivoldDepartment of Health and Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway.
Isabell FridhDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Surgery, and Intensive Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Faculty of Caring Science, Work Life and Social Welfare, University of Borås, Sweden.
Anne Sophie ÅgårdDepartment of Intensive Care, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Science in Nursing, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine conditions and strategies to meet the challenges imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related visiting restrictions in Scandinavian intensive care units. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/

designA cross-sectional survey.

settingAdult intensive care units in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

main outcome measuresLikert scale responses and free-text comments within six areas: capacity and staffing, visiting policies and access to the unit, information and conferences with relatives, written information, children as relatives and follow-up initiatives.

resultsThe overall response rate was 53% (74/140 participating units). All intensive care units had planned for capacity extensions; the majority ranging between 11 and 30 extra beds. From March-June 2020, units had a mean maximum of 9.4 COVID-19 patients simultaneously. Allowing restricted visiting was more common in Denmark (52%) and Norway (61%) than in Sweden where visiting was mostly denied except for dying patients (68%), due to a particular increased number of COVID-19 patients. The restrictions forced nurses to compromise on their usual standards of family care. Numerous models for maintaining contact between relatives and patients were described.

conclusionVisitation restrictions compromised the quality of family care and entailed dilemmas for healthcare professionals but also spurred initiatives to developing new ways of providing family care.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIntensive Care UnitsNorwaySARS-CoV-2COVID-19FamilyICURelativesSurveyVisitation

Identifiers

PMID34391628
PMCPMC8310723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.