Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Continuous Family Access to the Intensive Care Unit: A Mixed Method Exploratory Study

Rubina Mahajan, Suvidha Gupta, Gagandeep Singh, Ramit Mahajan, Parshotam L Gautam

Keywords : Intensive care unit, Mixed method, Visiting policy

Citation Information : Mahajan R, Gupta S, Singh G, Mahajan R, Gautam PL. Continuous Family Access to the Intensive Care Unit: A Mixed Method Exploratory Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021; 25 (5):540-550.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23805

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-05-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction: Intensive care unit (ICU) visitation has traditionally been restrictive, primarily due to septic considerations and staff apprehension towards unrestricted visitation policy. However, ICU admission is stressful for patients and their families and the presence of family relatives at ICU patients’ bedside may help alleviate the same. The present study compares the viewpoints of healthcare workers (HCW) and patients’ family members regarding these two types of visitation policies. Materials and methods: The initial assessment involved a qualitative investigation, based on an inductive grounded theory approach. Participant interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, manually coded, themes analyzed, and aggregate dimensions unfolded. Subsequently, a structured proforma filled by stakeholders and responses were coded as categorical variables (quantitative investigation). Their association with a continuous presence of family members was seen using univariate analysis (Chi-square test) and p <0.05 was considered significant. Satisfaction levels were rated on a Likert scale. Results: Eighty-six stakeholders [group A: HCWs (15 doctors, 29 nurses), group B: patients (n = 18), and their relatives (n = 24)] were interviewed. While group A preferred restricted visitation policy (RVP), group B preferred unrestricted visitation policy (UVP). Quantitative data confirmed that HCWs (92.8% nurses and 85.7% doctors) were more satisfied with RVP and group B (92.3% relatives and 87.5% patients) with UVP. Group A (75.9% nurses and 93.3% doctors) therefore preferred RVP and group B (75% families and 66.6% patients) preferred UVP. Conclusion: The patients and their families were more satisfied with UVP contrary to HCWs who were skeptical towards UVP and preferred RVP.


PDF Share
  1. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Choosing a mixed methods design. In: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2011; pp. 54–106.
  2. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB. How to construct a mixed methods research design. Köln Z Sozio. 2011;69(2):107–131. DOI: 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1.
  3. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL, Gutmann ML, Hanson WE. An expanded typology for classifying mixed methods research into designs. In: The Mixed Methods Reader. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2008; pp. 159–196.
  4. Charmaz K. “Discovering” chronic illness: using grounded theory. Soc Sci Med 1990;30(11):1161–1172. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-R.
  5. Creswell JW. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2003.
  6. Blair E. A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. J Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences. 2015 Jan 19;6(1):14–29. DOI: 10.2458/jmm.v6i1.18772.
  7. Kurasaki KS. Intercoder reliability for validating conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data: field methods [Internet]. 2016 Jul 24 [cited 2020 Mar 11]; Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1525822X0001200301.
  8. Sullivan GM, Artino AR. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ 2013;5(4):541–542. DOI: 10.4300/JGME-5-4-18.
  9. Berti D, Ferdinande P, Moons P. Beliefs and attitudes of intensive care nurses toward visits and open visiting policy. Intensive Care Med 2007;33(6):1060–1065. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0599-x.
  10. Whitton S, Pittiglio LI. Critical care open visiting hours. Crit Care Nurs Q 2011;34(4):361–366. DOI: 10.1097/CNQ.0b013e31822c9ab1.
  11. Nassar Junior AP, Besen BAMP, Robinson CC, Falavigna M, Teixeira C, Rosa RG. Flexible versus restrictive visiting policies in ICUs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2018;46(7):1175–1180. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003155.
  12. Garrouste-Orgeas M, Philippart F, Timsit JF, Diaw F, Willems V, Tabah A, et al. Perceptions of a 24-hour visiting policy in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2008;36(1):30–35. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000295310.29099.F8.
  13. da Silva Ramos FJ, Fumis RRL, Azevedo LCP, Schettino G. Perceptions of an open visitation policy by intensive care unit workers. Ann Intensive Care 2013;3(1):34. DOI: 10.1186/2110-5820-3-34.
  14. Kozub E, Scheler S, Necoechea G, OʼByrne N. Improving nurse satisfaction with open visitation in an adult intensive care unit. Crit Care Nurs Q 2017;40(2):144–154. DOI: 10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000151.
  15. Fumagalli S, Calvani S, Gironi E, Roberts A, Gabbai D, Fracchia S, et al. An unrestricted visitation policy reduces patients’ and relatives’ stress levels in intensive care units. Eur Heart J [Internet]. 2013 Aug 1 [cited 2019 Sep 8];34(suppl_1):P5126. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/34/suppl_1/P5126/2863041. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht310.P5126.
  16. Hsieh SJ, Ely EW, Gong MN. Can intensive care unit delirium be prevented and reduced? Lessons learned and future directions. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013;10(6):648–656. DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201307-232FR.
  17. Hunter JD, Goddard C, Rothwell M, Ketharaju S, Cooper H. A survey of intensive care unit visiting policies in the United Kingdom. Anaesthesi. 201v;65(11):1101–1105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06506.x.
  18. Beesley SJ, Hopkins RO, Francis L, Chapman D, Johnson J, Johnson N, et al. Let them in: family presence during intensive care unit procedures. Ann Am Thorac So. 2016;13(7):1155–1159. DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201511-754OI.
  19. Marco L, Bermejillo I, Garayalde N, Sarrate I, Margall MA, Asiain MC. Intensive care nurses’ beliefs and attitudes towards the effect of open visiting on patients, family and nurses. Nurs Crit Care 2006;11(1):33–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1362-1017.2006.00148.x.
  20. Halm MA, Titler MG. Appropriateness of critical care visitation: perceptions of patients, families, nurses, and physicians. J Nurs Qual Assur 1990;5(1):25–37.
  21. Riccioni L, Ajmone-Cat CA, Rogante S, Ranaldi G, Ciarlone A. New roles for health-care workers in the open ICU. Trends Anaestd Cril Care 2014;4(6):182–185. DOI: 10.1016/j.tacc.2014.08.003.
  22. Giannini A, Miccinesi G, Prandi E, Buzzoni C, Borreani C, ODIN Study Group. Partial liberalization of visiting policies and ICU staff: a before-and-after study. Intensive Care Med 2013;39(12):2180–2187. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-3087-5.
  23. Hart A, Hardin SR, Townsend AP, Ramsey S, Mahrle-Henson A. Critical care visitation: nurse and family preference. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2013;32(6):289–299. DOI: 10.1097/01.DCC.0000434515.58265.7d.
  24. Berwick DM, Kotagal M. Restricted visiting hours in ICUs: time to change. JAMA 2004;292(6):736–737. DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.6.736.
  25. Khaleghparast S, Joolaee S, Ghanbari B, Maleki M, Peyrovi H, Bahrani N. A review of visiting policies in intensive care units. Glob J Health Sci 2015;8(6):267–276. DOI: 10.5539/gjhs.v8n6p267.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.