Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35501199›Full record

ArticleAustralian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses2023

Family experiences and perceptions of intensive care unit care and communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

R Digby, E Manias, K J Haines, J Orosz, J Ihle, T K Bucknall

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Beyond the ICU: family resilience and emotional turmoil after intensive care - a qualitative study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

R DigbyDeakin University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Research, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia; Alfred Health, 55 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. Electronic address: r.digby@deakin.edu.au.
E ManiasDeakin University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Research, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. Electronic address: emanias@deakin.edu.au.
K J HainesDepartment of Physiotherapy, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Critical Care, School of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: kimberley.haines@wh.org.au.
J OroszDepartment of Intensive Care, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: j.orosz@alfred.org.au.
J IhleDepartment of Intensive Care, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: j.ihle@alfred.org.au.
T K BucknallDeakin University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, Research, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia; Alfred Health, 55 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. Electronic address: tracey.bucknall@deakin.edu.au.
Deakin University · AUThe Alfred Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 2020, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Melbourne, visitor access to acute hospitals including intensive care units (ICUs) was initially barred, followed by a limit of one person per patient for one hour per day. This study explores the care and communication experienced by family members of ICU patients during this time.

methodsThis qualitative descriptive study was conducted at an Australian quaternary hospital. Semistructured phone interviews were conducted using an aide-memoire designed to understand participants' experiences as family of a patient during this time. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed.

findingsTwenty family members of patients in the ICU participated. Three major themes were identified: 'impact of restricting visiting procedures', 'family experiences of communication', and 'care and support'. Inflexible visiting restrictions had a momentous impact on families. Participants objected to having to nominate only two people to visit during the admission and the short visiting time limit. Some family members suffered extreme stress and anxiety during their absence from the bedside. Additional challenges were experienced by rural families, visitors with disabilities, and the young children of patients who were excluded. Communication with clinicians varied. Telehealth was valued by some but not universally embraced. The relationship between staff members and families and involvement in decision-making were unaffected.

conclusionFamilies experienced significant psychological distress from being separated from their critically ill relatives. Patient care and involvement in decision-making appeared to be unchanged, but communication with staff felt to be lacking. Better alternatives to face-to-face communication must be sought to limit the impact of family separation on mental health. Families are a key link between the patient and clinicians and often play a major role in patient support and recovery after discharge. There is an urgent need to support them and facilitate meaningful engagement despite the obstacles.

Indexed as

COVID-19Critical CareFamilyVisitors to PatientsAustraliaClinical Decision-MakingHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsQualitative ResearchClinical decision-makingCommunicationCOVID-19Family experienceFamily participationIntensive care unitPsychological impactTelehealthVisitor restriction

Identifiers

PMID35501199
PMCPMC8971060
OpenAlexW4220811042

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.