Family Caregivers as Essential Partners in Care: Examining the Impacts of Restrictive Acute Care Visiting Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 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 across Canada 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 health care 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".