Family caregivers as essential partners in care: examining the impacts of restrictive acute care visiting policies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: During the pandemic many Canadian hospitals made significant changes to their 'open family presence' and 'visitor policies' to reduce the spread of COVID-19 by instituting restrictive or 'zero visiting' policies in healthcare facilities. These policies have the potential to create great hardship, anxiety and stress for patients, families, caregivers and frontline healthcare providers (HCPs); along with concerns about the quality and safety of patient care. The presence of family members and other caregivers as essential partners in care is an explicit expression of the philosophy of patient- and family-centred care (PFCC) in action. The purpose of this study is to increase our understanding of how changes to family presence and visiting policies and practices during the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted patients, family caregivers and frontline healthcare providers (HCPs) in acute care hospitals. METHODS: A total of 38 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, family caregivers and HCPs in Canadian provinces who had experience with visiting policies in acute care settings during the pandemic. COVID patients, and the caregivers of COVID patients, were excluded from this study. A maximum variation sampling strategy was used to guide the selection and recruitment of patients, family caregivers and HCPs, based on our interest in gaining a diversity of perspectives and experiences. RESULTS: Many patients, family caregivers, and HCPs view family caregiver presence as integral to PFCC, describing the essential roles played by family caregivers prior to the pandemic. There were commonalities across all three groups with respect to their perspectives on the impacts of restrictive visiting policies on patients, family caregivers and HCPs. They fell into four broad integrated categories: (1) emotional and mental health; (2) communication and advocacy; (3) safety and quality of care; and (4) PFCC, trust in the healthcare system, and future decisions regarding accessing needed healthcare. Recommendations for pandemic visiting policies were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study highlighted several impacts of restrictive family caregiver presence or visiting policies implemented during COVID-19 on patients, family caregivers and HCPs in acute healthcare settings across Canada. Participants emphasized that there is no "one-size-fits-all" caregiver presence policy that will address all patient needs. To be consistent with the practice of PFCC, patients and family caregivers are welcomed as part of the healthcare team in ways that work for them, demonstrating that flexibility in family presence and visiting policies is essential.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,020 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».