Suppr超能文献

一项关于儿科重症监护病房临床医生在 COVID-19 期间限制家属探视体验的调查。

A survey of pediatric intensive care unit clinician experience with restricted family presence during COVID-19.

机构信息

Department of Pediatric Critical Care, IWK Health Centre, 5850/5980 University Ave., PO Box 9700, Halifax, NS, B3K 6R8, Canada.

Department of Critical Care, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

出版信息

Can J Anaesth. 2023 Oct;70(10):1669-1681. doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02547-7. Epub 2023 Aug 23.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Limiting family presence runs counter to the family-centred values of Canadian pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). This study explores how implementing and enforcing COVID-19-related restricted family presence (RFP) policies impacted PICU clinicians nationally.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, online, self-administered survey of Canadian PICU clinicians to assess experience and opinions of restrictions, moral distress (Moral Distress Thermometer, range 0-10), and mental health impacts (Impact of Event Scale [IES], range 0-75 and attributable stress [five-point Likert scale]). For analysis, we used descriptive statistics, multivariate regression modelling, and a general inductive approach for free text.

RESULTS

Representing 17/19 Canadian PICUs, 368 of 388 respondents (94%) experienced RFP policies and were predominantly female (333/368, 91%), English speaking (338/368, 92%), and nurses (240/368, 65%). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) reported moral distress score was 4.5 (2.4) and was associated with perceived differential impact on families. The mean (SD) total IES score was 29.7 (10.5), suggesting moderate traumatic stress with 56% (176/317) reporting increased/significantly increased stress from restrictions related to separating families, denying access, and concern for family impacts. Incongruence between RFP policies/practices and PICU values was perceived by 66% of respondents (217/330). Most respondents (235/330, 71%) felt their opinions were not valued when implementing policies. Though respondents perceived that restrictions were implemented for the benefit of clinicians (252/332, 76%) and to protect families (236/315, 75%), 57% (188/332) disagreed that their RFP experience was mainly positive.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric intensive care unit-based RFP rules, largely designed and implemented without bedside clinician input, caused increased psychological burden for clinicians, characterized as moderate moral distress and trauma triggered by perceived impacts on families.

摘要

目的

限制家属探视与加拿大儿科重症监护病房(PICU)以家庭为中心的价值观背道而驰。本研究旨在探讨实施和执行与 COVID-19 相关的限制家属探视(RFP)政策如何影响全国的 PICU 临床医生。

方法

我们对加拿大 PICU 临床医生进行了一项横断面、在线、自我管理的调查,以评估他们对限制探视的经验和意见、道德困境(道德困境温度计,范围 0-10)以及心理健康影响(事件影响量表[IES],范围 0-75 和归因压力[五分李克特量表])。分析采用描述性统计、多元回归建模和自由文本的一般归纳方法。

结果

代表 19 个加拿大 PICU 中的 17 个,368 名 388 名受访者(94%)经历了 RFP 政策,主要为女性(333/368,91%)、英语(338/368,92%)和护士(240/368,65%)。报告的平均(标准差[SD])道德困境得分是 4.5(2.4),与感知到的对家庭的不同影响有关。IES 总分的平均(SD)为 29.7(10.5),表明存在中度创伤性应激,其中 56%(176/317)报告与隔离家庭、拒绝探视和担心家庭影响相关的限制措施导致压力增加/显著增加。66%的受访者(217/330)认为 RFP 政策/实践与 PICU 价值观不一致。大多数受访者(330 名中的 235 名,71%)在实施政策时觉得自己的意见没有得到重视。尽管受访者认为限制探视是为了临床医生的利益(332 名中的 252 名,76%)和保护家庭(315 名中的 236 名,75%),但 57%(332 名中的 188 名)不同意他们的 RFP 体验主要是积极的。

结论

以儿科重症监护病房为基础的 RFP 规则,主要是在没有床边临床医生参与的情况下设计和实施的,给临床医生带来了更大的心理负担,表现为中度道德困境和创伤,这是由于他们认为这些规则对家庭产生了影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/700a/10600297/417e2fe9f94d/12630_2023_2547_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验