ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023
A survey of pediatric intensive care unit clinician experience with restricted family presence during COVID-19.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of COVID-19-related restricted family presence policies on Canadian pediatric intensive care unit clinicians: a qualitative study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLimiting family presence runs counter to the family-centred values of Canadian pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). This study explores how implementing and enforcing COVID-19-related restricted family presence (RFP) policies impacted PICU clinicians nationally.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, online, self-administered survey of Canadian PICU clinicians to assess experience and opinions of restrictions, moral distress (Moral Distress Thermometer, range 0-10), and mental health impacts (Impact of Event Scale [IES], range 0-75 and attributable stress [five-point Likert scale]). For analysis, we used descriptive statistics, multivariate regression modelling, and a general inductive approach for free text.
resultsRepresenting 17/19 Canadian PICUs, 368 of 388 respondents (94%) experienced RFP policies and were predominantly female (333/368, 91%), English speaking (338/368, 92%), and nurses (240/368, 65%). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) reported moral distress score was 4.5 (2.4) and was associated with perceived differential impact on families. The mean (SD) total IES score was 29.7 (10.5), suggesting moderate traumatic stress with 56% (176/317) reporting increased/significantly increased stress from restrictions related to separating families, denying access, and concern for family impacts. Incongruence between RFP policies/practices and PICU values was perceived by 66% of respondents (217/330). Most respondents (235/330, 71%) felt their opinions were not valued when implementing policies. Though respondents perceived that restrictions were implemented for the benefit of clinicians (252/332, 76%) and to protect families (236/315, 75%), 57% (188/332) disagreed that their RFP experience was mainly positive.
conclusionPediatric intensive care unit-based RFP rules, largely designed and implemented without bedside clinician input, caused increased psychological burden for clinicians, characterized as moderate moral distress and trauma triggered by perceived impacts on families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.