Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34750041›Full record

ArticleIntensive & critical care nursing2022

Practice of family-centred care in intensive care units before the COVID-19-pandemic: A cross-sectional analysis in German-speaking countries.

Maria Brauchle, Peter Nydahl, Gudrun Pregartner, Magdalena Hoffmann, Marie-Madlen Jeitziner

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. [Relatives after a stay on the intensive care unit: a care gap to be closed].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. [The intensive care diary-a communication tool].Procare : das forbildungsmagazin fur pflegeberufe · 2023
    Article
  9. [The intensive care diary-a communication tool].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2022
    Review
  10. 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

5 authors.

Maria BrauchleHospital Landeskrankenhaus Feldkirch, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Carinagasse 35, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria. Electronic address: maria.brauchle@lkhf.at.
Peter NydahlDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. Electronic address: Peter.Nydahl@uksh.de.
Gudrun PregartnerInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2/9/V, 8036 Graz, Austria. Electronic address: gudrun.pregartner@medunigraz.at.
Magdalena HoffmannDepartment of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria; Executive Department for Quality and Risk Management, University Hospital Graz, Graz, Austria; Research Unit for Safety in Health, c/o Division of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 1/3, 8036 Graz, Austria. Electronic address: Magdalena.hoffmann@medunigraz.at.
Marie-Madlen JeitzinerInstitute of Nursing Science (INS), Department of Public Health (DPH), Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056 Basel, Switzerland; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bern (Inselspital), University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 4, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo provide insights into visiting policies and family-centred care practices with a focus on children as visitors in Intensive Care Units in German-speaking countries. METHODS/

designOnline-survey with a mixed methods approach. Leading clinicians (n = 1943) from German-speaking countries were invited to participate. Outcomes included the percentage of intensive care units with open visiting policies, age restrictions, family-centred care activities and barriers.

settingPaediatric, mixed and adult units

resultsIn total, 19.8% (n = 385) of the clinicians responded. Open visiting times were reported by 36.3% (n = 117), with significant differences between paediatric (79.2%), adult (21.3%) and mixed-age (41.2%) units (p < 0.01). Two-thirds of clinicians stated that their units had no age restrictions for children as visitors (n = 221, 68.4%). The family-centred care activities most frequently implemented were open visiting times and dissemination of information. Significantly more German units have open visiting policies and more Swiss units allow children as visitors, compared to the other countries (both p < 0.001). Barriers to family-centred care were concerns about children being traumatized, infection and workload.

conclusionThe majority reported that family-centred care policies had been implemented in their units, including open visiting policies, allowing children as visitors without age restriction and other family-centred care activities.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultChildCross-Sectional StudiesFamilyHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesVisitors to PatientsAttitudeChildCrisis interventionCritical careFamilyPatient-centered careVisitors to patients

Identifiers

PMID34750041
PMCPMC8421104

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.