Hospital visiting policies – impacts on patients, families and staff: A review of the literature to inform decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some healthcare organizations recommend adopting open visiting policies. These organisations are working towards the end goal of promoting the idea that patients and families can be true partners in care. An essential step in this culture shift involves openness to family presence and their engagement in the patient’s care. Among other things, their recommendations are based on data from studies that assessed the impacts of different types of visiting policies on patients, families and healthcare staff. In order to inform and guide an organizational reflection on possible changes to our hospital center’s visiting policies, our team undertook a systematic review that focussed on the advantages and disadvantages of open/flexible visiting policies, as perceived by patients, families and staff. Review articles and original articles were assessed and synthesized following a rigorous review process. Results of the reviewed studies suggest that flexible visiting policies lead to greater patient satisfaction with care and to positive impacts for both patients and families, and that these stakeholders have clear preferences for open/flexible policies. Nevertheless, policies including some guidelines to safeguard rest and sleep periods were deemed necessary by patients, rather than an unqualified open policy. Results also suggested that flexible visiting hours were not associated with an increased risk in hospital-acquired infections or septic complications in intensive care units (ICUs), where the majority of the reviewed studies were carried out. Authors recommended taking the specific context of care units into account when implementing new visiting policies, as needs may be different according to different health issues. Staff preferences over a model or the other were somewhat mixed. Some staff see the presence of families and visitors as an obstacle to the provision of care and a reason to fear increased workloads. In order to overcome this resistance, the importance of adequately preparing staff and supporting them throughout the policy change to ensure its success is highlighted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".