Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35672211›Full record

ArticleIntensive & critical care nursing2022

Family perspectives on facilitators and barriers to the set up and conduct of virtual visiting in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative interview study.

Louise Rose, Tanya Graham, Andreas Xyrichis, Natalie Pattison, Victoria Metaxa, Sian Saha, Pam Ramsay, Joel Meyer

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, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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.

Louise RoseCritical Care Nursing, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Rd, London, UK. Electronic address: louise.rose@kcl.ac.uk.
Tanya GrahamFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Rd, London, UK.
Andreas XyrichisFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, 57 Waterloo Rd, London, UK.
Natalie PattisonFlorence Nightingale Foundation, Nursing, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, UK; East & North Herts NHS Trust, UK.
Victoria MetaxaCritical Care, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Sian SahaACET Research Team, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Pam RamsaySchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK.
Joel MeyerGuy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo gain perspectives from family members about barriers and facilitators to virtual visit set up and conduct across intensive care unit settings in the United Kingdom to inform understanding of best practices.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study recruiting a purposive sample of family members of adult intensive care unit patients experiencing virtual visiting during Jan to May 2021 of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used semi-structured qualitative interviews and a standard Thematic Analysis approach.

resultsWe recruited 41 family-member participants from 16 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Facilitators to successful virtual visit set-up were preparation of the family, negotiating a preferred time, and easy-to-use technology. Facilitators to successful conduct were intensive care unit team member presence; enabling family involvement in care; inclusivity, accessibility, and flexibility; and having a sense of control. Barriers that created distress or conflict included restrictive virtual visiting practices; raising expectations then failing to meet them; lack of virtual visit pre-planning; and failing to prepare the patient. Barriers to visit conduct were incorrect camera positioning, insufficient technical and staff resources, issues with three-way connectivity, and lack of call closure. Recommendations included emotional self-preparation, increased technology availability, and preparing conversation topics.

conclusionThese data may guide virtual visiting practices during the ongoing pandemic but also to continue virtual visiting outside of pandemic conditions. This will benefit family members suffering from ill health, living at a distance, unable to afford travel, and those with work and care commitments, thereby reducing inequities of access and promoting family-centered care.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultCritical CareFamilyHumansPandemicsQualitative ResearchCommunicationCOVID-19FamilyFamily-centred careIntensive careVirtual visiting

Identifiers

PMID35672211
PMCPMC9114263

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.