Consequences of visitor restriction policies in the intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic

Family caregivers’ responses to a visitation restriction policy at a Korean surgical intensive care unit before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

“…In many Western countries, open and flexible ICU visitation policies were promoted until the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, while banning physical visitation became a common practice [ 24 , 32 , 33 ], reports from Canada [ 34 , 35 ], Spain [36] , and the Scandinavian countries [37] have indicated that instead of a complete ban, some institutions limited the number of visitors (e.g., one person at a time) and the duration of visits (e.g., < 30 minutes or one hour per day). In South Korea, open visitation had not been implemented in ICUs in the pre-pandemic period; typically, one or two relatives were allowed to visit for 30 minutes to a maximum of one hour once or twice a day [11] .…”

“…As clinical implications, first of all, the visiting restrictions must be communicated to the public in a compassionate manner with sufficient justification of the potential benefits (e.g., community protection), scientific rationale, and plans to supplement the family support [43]. Furthermore, a system should be designated for evaluating exceptions to visiting restrictions and a transparent appeal process to best prevent the adverse consequences of visitation restrictions amongst patients and families [34]. As alternative support methods, adopting virtual visitation using various digital technology seems to be an ongoing trend [44].…”

Impact of an inclusive COVID-19 visitation policy on patient satisfaction and visitor safety

“…Guidance for healthcare facilities from the CDC has evolved since the early phases of the pandemic, but they remain restrictive 13 . Overly restrictive visitor polices can contribute to feelings of isolation among patients, anxiety of family members, and moral distress among health care workers 14 .…”

Infection prevention and control across the continuum of COVID‐19 care: A qualitative study of patients', caregivers' and providers' experiences

“…One of the most prominent IP&C measures that was adopted worldwide involved strict ‘no visitor’ policies 2,3 . While IP&C measures like physical distancing, isolation, use of personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., masks, face shields, gowns) and visitation restrictions created important layers of protection, they undoubtedly resulted in negative consequences for patients such as anxiety, depression and loneliness 4–6 …”

“…2,3 While IP&C measures like physical distancing, isolation, use of personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., masks, face shields, gowns) and visitation restrictions created important layers of protection, they undoubtedly resulted in negative consequences for patients such as anxiety, depression and loneliness. [4][5][6] Visitation restrictions, in particular, proved to be especially challenging, as large-scale disasters-such as the COVID pandemicintensify stress and basic human needs to feel safe and connected. 7 Balancing high-quality care and human connection with the safety of patients, families and HCPs during a pandemic proved extremely challenging.…”