BackgroundAn intensive care unit (ICU) admission is a stressful event for the patient and the patient’s family. Several studies demonstrated symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder in family members of patients admitted to ICU. Some studies recognize that the open visitation policy (OVP) is related to a reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression for the patient and an improvement in family satisfaction. However, some issues have been presented as barriers for the adoption of that strategy. This study was designed to evaluate perceptions of physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists (RTs) of an OVP and to quantify visiting times in a Brazilian private intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThis observational and descriptive study was performed in the medical-surgical (22 beds) and neurologic ICU (8 beds) of Sírio-Libanês Hospital (HSL), São Paulo, Brazil. All physicians, nurses, and RTs from ICU were invited to participate in the study. A questionnaire was applied to all ICU workers who accepted to participate in the study. The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions about the visiting policy. During five consecutive days, we evaluated the time that the visitors stayed in the patient room, as well as the type of visitor.ResultsA total of 106 ICU workers participated in this study (42 physicians, 39 nurses, and 25 RTs). Only three of the questions exposed a negative perception of the visiting policy: 53.3% of the participants do not think that the OVP consistently increases family satisfaction with patient’s care; 59.4% of ICU workers think that the OVP impairs the organization of the patient’s care; 72.7% of participants believe that their work suffers more interruptions because of the OVP. The median visiting time per day was 11.5 hours.ConclusionsAccording to physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists, the greatest impact of OVP is the benefit to the patients rather than to the family or to the staff. Furthermore, they feel that they need communication training to better interact with family members who are present in the ICU 24 hours per day.
Adult CHD didactic and clinical experiences for cardiology fellows vary widely. Few programs offer advanced CHD training, and the number of specially trained physicians is unlikely to meet projected workforce requirements. Adult cardiology programs with PC affiliation have increased CHD experience and might provide good educational models.
Objective This study aimed to determine which visitation policy was the most predominant in
Brazilian intensive care units and what amenities were provided to visitors.Methods Eight hundred invitations were sent to the e-mail addresses of intensivist
physicians and nurses who were listed in the research groups of the Brazilian
Association of Intensive Care Network and the Brazilian Research in Intensive Care
Network. The e-mail contained a link to a 33-item questionnaire about the profile
of their intensive care unit.Results One hundred sixty-two questionnaires from intensive care units located in all
regions of the country, but predominantly in the Southeast and South (58% and
16%), were included in the study. Only 2.6% of the intensive care units reported
having liberal visitation policies, while 45.1% of the intensive care units
allowed 2 visitation periods and 69.1% allowed 31-60 minutes of visitation per
period. In special situations, such as end-of-life cases, 98.7% of them allowed
flexible visitation. About half of them (50.8%) did not offer any bedside
amenities for visitors. Only 46.9% of the intensive care units had a family
meeting room, and 37% did not have a waiting room.Conclusion Restrictive visitation policies are predominant in Brazilian intensive care
units, with most of them allowing just two periods of visitation per day. There is
also a lack of amenities for visitors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.