Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36859246›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Exploring staff perspectives on caring for isolated hospitalised patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

Robin Digby, Ingrid Hopper, Leanne Hughes, Doug McCaskie, Michelle Tuck, Kethly Fallon, Peter Hunter, Tracey Bucknall

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Robin DigbyAlfred Health, PO Box 315, Prahran, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia. r.digby@deakin.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5951-9419
Ingrid HopperAlfred Health, PO Box 315, Prahran, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8805-370X
Leanne HughesAlfred Health, PO Box 315, Prahran, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia.
Doug McCaskieAlfred Health, PO Box 315, Prahran, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia.
Michelle TuckAlfred Health, PO Box 315, Prahran, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia.
Kethly FallonAlfred Health, PO Box 315, Prahran, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia.
Peter HunterAlfred Health, PO Box 315, Prahran, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia.
Tracey BucknallAlfred Health, PO Box 315, Prahran, Melbourne, VIC, 3181, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9089-3583
Alfred Health · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrict isolation of COVID-19 patients to prevent cross infection may inadvertently cause serious adverse outcomes including psychological harm, limitations to care, increased incidence of delirium, deconditioning and reduced quality of life. Previous research exploring the staff perspective of the effect of isolation on patients is limited. The aim of this study is to understand staff perceptions and interpretations of their experiences of the care and treatment of isolated patients and the impact of isolation on patients, families, and staff.

methodThis qualitative, exploratory study is set in a major metropolitan, quaternary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Data was collected in focus groups with clinical and non-clinical staff and analysed using content analysis. The hospital ethics committee granted approval. Each participant gave informed verbal consent.

resultsParticipants included 58 nursing, medical, allied health, and non-clinical staff. Six main themes were identified: 1) Communication challenges during COVID-19; 2) Impact of isolation on family; 3) Challenges to patients' health and safety; 4) Impact on staff; 5) Challenging standards of care; 6) Contextual influences: policy, decision-makers and the environment.

conclusionIsolating patients and restricting visitors resulted in good pandemic management, but staff perceived it came at considerable cost to staff and consumers. Innovative communication technology may facilitate improved connection between all parties. Mental health support is needed for patients, families, and staff. Further research using a co-design model with input from patients, families and staff is recommended to determine appropriate interventions to improve care. Preventing the spread of infection is essential for good pandemic management, but the cost to consumers and staff must be mitigated. Preparation for future pandemics must consider workforce preparedness, adapted models of care and workflow.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cross InfectionHumansPandemicsPatient IsolationQuality of LifeAcute hospitalClinical careClinical decision-makingCommunicationCOVID-19Patient isolationPerson-centred careStaff perception

Identifiers

PMID36859246
PMCPMC9977084
OpenAlexW4322732071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.