Restricted family presence for hospitalized surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: How hospital care providers and families navigated ethical tensions and experiences of institutional betrayal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic restricted family presence in hospitals was a widespread public health intervention to preserve critical resources and mitigate the virus's spread. In this study, we explore the experiences of surgical care providers and family members of hospitalized surgical patients during the period of highly restricted visiting (March 2020 to April 2021) in a large Canadian academic hospital. Thirty-four interviews were completed with hospital providers, family members and members of the hospital's visitor task force. To understand hospital providers' experiences, we highlight the ethical tensions produced by the biomedical and public health ethics frameworks that converged during COVID-19 in hospital providers' bedside practice. Providers grappled with mixed feelings in support of and against restricted visiting, while simultaneously experiencing gaps in resources and care and acting as patient gatekeepers. To understand family members' experiences of communication and care, we use the theory of institutional betrayal to interpret the negative impacts of episodic and systemic communication failures during restricted visiting. Family members of the most vulnerable patients (and patients) experienced short- and long-term effects including anxiety, fear, and refusal of further care. Our analysis draws attention to the complex ways that hospital care providers and families of hospitalized surgical patients sought to establish and reconfigure how trust and patient-centeredness could be achieved under these unprecedented conditions. Practical learnings from this study suggest that if family presence in hospitals must be limited in the future, dedicated personnel for communication and emotional support for patients, families and staff must be prioritized.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".