Rationale: Restriction or prohibition of family visiting intensive care units (ICUs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic poses substantial barriers to communication and family- and patient-centered care. Objectives: To understand how communication among families, patients, and the ICU team was enabled during the pandemic. The secondary objectives were to understand strategies used to facilitate virtual visiting and associated benefits and barriers. Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional, and self-administered electronic survey was sent (June 2020) to all 217 UK hospitals with at least one ICU. Results: The survey response rate was 54%; 117 of 217 hospitals (182 ICUs) responded. All hospitals imposed visiting restrictions, with visits not permitted under any circumstance in 16% of hospitals (28 ICUs); 63% (112 ICUs) of hospitals permitted family presence at the end of life. The responsibility for communicating with families shifted with decreased bedside nurse involvement. A dedicated ICU family-liaison team was established in 50% (106 ICUs) of hospitals. All but three hospitals instituted virtual visiting, although there was substantial heterogeneity in the videoconferencing platform used. Unconscious or sedated ICU patients were deemed ineligible for virtual visits in 23% of ICUs. Patients at the end of life were deemed ineligible for virtual visits in 7% of ICUs. Commonly reported benefits of virtual visiting were reducing patient psychological distress (78%), improving staff morale (68%), and reorientation of patients with delirium (47%). Common barriers to virtual visiting were related to insufficient staff time, rapid implementation of videoconferencing technology, and challenges associated with family members' ability to use videoconferencing technology or access a device. Conclusions: Virtual visiting and dedicated communication teams were common COVID-19 pandemic innovations addressing the restrictions to family ICU visiting, and they resulted in valuable benefits in terms of patient recovery and staff morale. Enhancing access and developing a more consistent approach to family virtual ICU visits could improve the quality of care, both during and outside of pandemic conditions.

Communication and Virtual Visiting for Families of Patients in Intensive Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A UK National Survey.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020).

Importance
Persistent physical and mental disorders are frequent in survivors of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, data on these disorders among family members are scarce.


Objective
To determine the association between patient hospitalization for COVID-19 ARDS vs ARDS from other causes and the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms in family members.


Design, Setting, and Participants
Prospective cohort study in 23 intensive care units (ICUs) in France (January 2020 to June 2020 with final follow-up ending in October 2020). ARDS survivors and family members (1 family member per patient) were enrolled.


Exposures
Family members of patients hospitalized for ARDS due to COVID-19 vs ARDS due to other causes.


Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was family member symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge, measured by the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (score range, 0 [best] to 88 [worst]; presence of PTSD symptoms defined by score >22). Secondary outcomes were family member symptoms of anxiety and depression at 90 days assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (score range, 0 [best] to 42 [worst]; presence of anxiety or depression symptoms defined by subscale scores ≥7). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between COVID-19 status and outcomes.


Results
Among 602 family members and 307 patients prospectively enrolled, 517 (86%) family members (median [IQR] age, 51 [40-63] years; 72% women; 48% spouses; 26% bereaved because of the study patient's death; 303 [50%] family members of COVID-19 patients) and 273 (89%) patients (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-69] years; 34% women; 181 [59%] with COVID-19) completed the day-90 assessment. Compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS, family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS had a significantly higher prevalence of symptoms of PTSD (35% [103/293] vs 19% [40/211]; difference, 16% [95% CI, 8%-24%]; P < .001), symptoms of anxiety (41% [121/294] vs 34% [70/207]; difference, 8% [95% CI, 0%-16%]; P= .05), and symptoms of depression (31% [91/291] vs 18% [37/209]; difference, 13% [95% CI, 6%-21%]; P< .001). In multivariable models adjusting for age, sex, and level of social support, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk of PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.30 to 3.23]).


Conclusions and Relevance
Among family members of patients hospitalized in the ICU with ARDS, COVID-19 disease, as compared with other causes of ARDS, was significantly associated with increased risk of symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge.


Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04341519.

/pdf/association-of-covid-19-acute-respiratory-distress-syndrome-15fa98oe.pdf

Association of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Family Members After ICU Discharge.

Objectives To determine delirium occurrence rate, duration, and severity in patients admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019. Design Retrospective data extraction study from March 1, 2020, to June 7, 2020. Delirium outcomes were assessed for up to the first 14 days in ICU. Setting Two large, academic centers serving the state of Indiana. Patients Consecutive patients admitted to the ICU with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nasopharyngeal swab polymerase chain reaction test from March 1, 2020, to June 7, 2020, were included. Individuals younger than 18 years of age, without any delirium assessments, or without discharge disposition were excluded. Measurements and main results Primary outcomes were delirium rates and duration, and the secondary outcome was delirium severity. Two-hundred sixty-eight consecutive patients were included in the analysis with a mean age of 58.4 years (sd, 15.6 yr), 40.3% were female, 44.4% African American, 20.7% Hispanic, and a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18 (interquartile range, 13-25). Delirium without coma occurred in 29.1% of patients, delirium prior to coma in 27.9%, and delirium after coma in 23.1%. The first Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU assessment was positive for delirium in 61.9%. Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype (87.4%). By day 14, the median number of delirium/coma-free were 5 days (interquartile range, 4-11 d), and median Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7 score was 6.5 (interquartile range, 5-7) indicating severe delirium. Benzodiazepines were ordered for 78.4% of patients in the cohort. Mechanical ventilation was associated with greater odds of developing delirium (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.1-22.2; p = 0.033) even after adjusting for sedative medications. There were no between-group differences in mortality. Conclusions Delirium without coma occurred in 29.1% of patients admitted to the ICU. Delirium persisted for a median of 5 days and was severe. Mechanical ventilation was significantly associated with odds of delirium even after adjustment for sedatives. Clinical attention to manage delirium duration and severity, and deeper understanding of the virus' neurologic effects is needed for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Delirium Incidence, Duration, and Severity in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals.
 We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Trial registration: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

/pdf/restricted-visitation-policies-in-acute-care-settings-during-2pvpioj2ib.pdf

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

Importance The effects of intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours remain uncertain. Objective To determine whether a flexible family visitation policy in the ICU reduces the incidence of delirium. Design, Setting and Participants Cluster-crossover randomized clinical trial involving patients, family members, and clinicians from 36 adult ICUs with restricted visiting hours ( Interventions Flexible visitation (up to 12 hours per day) supported by family education (n = 837 patients, 652 family members, and 435 clinicians) or usual restricted visitation (median, 1.5 hours per day; n = 848 patients, 643 family members, and 391 clinicians). Nineteen ICUs started with flexible visitation, and 17 started with restricted visitation. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during ICU stay, assessed using the CAM-ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU-acquired infections for patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed using the HADS (range, 0 [best] to 21 [worst]) for family members; and burnout for ICU staff (Maslach Burnout Inventory). Results Among 1685 patients, 1295 family members, and 826 clinicians enrolled, 1685 patients (100%) (mean age, 58.5 years; 47.2% women), 1060 family members (81.8%) (mean age, 45.2 years; 70.3% women), and 737 clinicians (89.2%) (mean age, 35.5 years; 72.9% women) completed the trial. The mean daily duration of visits was significantly higher with flexible visitation (4.8 vs 1.4 hours; adjusted difference, 3.4 hours [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.9];P  Conclusions and Relevance Among patients in the ICU, a flexible family visitation policy, vs standard restricted visiting hours, did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02932358

/pdf/effect-of-flexible-family-visitation-on-delirium-among-4ixueoeufc.pdf

Debora Mariani de Oliveira

Papers

Effect of Flexible Family Visitation on Delirium Among Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: The ICU Visits Randomized Clinical Trial.