Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35487757›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Virtual visiting in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative descriptive study with ICU clinicians and non-ICU family team liaison members.

Andreas Xyrichis, Natalie Pattison, Pam Ramsay, Sian Saha, Amelia Cook, Victoria Metaxa, Joel Meyer, Louise Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Assessment of Family Satisfaction with Remote Communication for Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Cohort Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

Andreas XyrichisFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery, and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, England, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2359-4337
Natalie PattisonUniversity of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, England, UK.
Pam RamsaySchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.
Sian SahaACET Research Team, King's College Hospital, London, England, UK.
Amelia CookCicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, England, UK.
Victoria MetaxaKing's College Hospital, London, England, UK.
Joel MeyerGuy's and St Thomas' Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Louise RoseFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery, and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, England, UK louise.rose@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1700-3972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand the experiences and perceived benefits of virtual visiting from the perspectives of intensive care unit (ICU)-experienced clinicians and non-ICU-experienced family liaison team members.

designQualitative descriptive study.

settingAdult intensive care setting across 14 hospitals within the UK National Health Service.

participantsICU-experienced clinicians and non-ICU-experienced family liaison team members deployed during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsSemistructured telephone/video interviews were conducted with ICU clinicians. Analytical themes were developed inductively following a standard thematic approach, using 'family-centred care' and 'sensemaking' as sensitising concepts.

resultsWe completed 36 interviews, with 17 ICU-experienced clinicians and 19 non-ICU-experienced family liaison team members. In the context of inperson visiting restrictions, virtual visiting offered an alternative conduit to (1) restoring the family unit, (2) facilitating family involvement, and (3) enabling sensemaking for the family. Virtual visits with multiple family members concurrently and with those living in distant geographical locations restored a sense of family unit. Family involvement in rehabilitation, communication and orientation activities, as well as presence at the end of life, highlighted how virtual visiting could contribute to family-centred care. Virtual visits were emotionally challenging for many family members, but also cathartic in helping make sense of their own emotions and experience by visualising their relatives in the ICU. Being able to see and interact with loved ones and their immediate care providers afforded important cues to enable family sensemaking of the ICU experience.

conclusionsIn this UK qualitative study of clinicians using virtual ICU visiting, in the absence of inperson visiting, virtual visiting was perceived positively as an alternative that promoted family-centred care through virtual presence. We anticipate the perceived benefits of virtual visiting may extend to non-pandemic conditions through improved equity and timeliness of family access to the ICU by offering an alternative option alongside inperson visiting.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsState MedicinecommunicationCOVID-19familyintensive carevideoconferencingvisiting

Identifiers

PMID35487757
PMCPMC9058291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.