Jeong Hyunwoo, Choi Yonsu, Kim Heejung
College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Internal Medicine Nursing, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Interact J Med Res. 2023 Nov 28;12:e43572. doi: 10.2196/43572.
In the COVID-19 pandemic, a visit restriction policy for patients has been implemented in medical institutions worldwide and visits are being made using alternative communication technologies. This shift has also required the use of platforms to prevent negative consequences of these restrictions.
The purpose of this review was to comprehensively explore nonface-to-face visits as an alternative during infection prevention and to synthesize the scientific evidence of their benefits and disadvantages.
A comprehensive search was conducted via the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science electronic databases; unpublished trials in the clinical trials register ClinicalTrials.gov; and Virginia Henderson International Nursing Library up to September 10, 2021. The search query was developed according to the guidelines of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies and included keywords on the topics of telemedicine and visitation restrictions. The inclusion criteria were a nonface-to-face modality using telemedicine with family in a hospital setting, experimental and observational studies, and articles written in English. The exclusion criteria were inaccessible in full text, not related to patient or family involvement, mainly focused on the study protocol, or only discussing the pros and cons of telemedicine.
Overall, patients' families experienced emotional distress due to restrictions on face-to-face visits. Nonface-to-face virtual visits compensating for these restrictions had a positive effect on reducing the risk of infection to the patient and the family. This further encouraged psychological and physical recovery and decreased psychological distress. However, nonface-to-face virtual technology could not replace the existence of actual families, and technical problems with networks and devices are reported as limitations.
Ensuring the availability of technology and educating on the same in alignment with the characteristics of patients and their families, nonface-to-face virtual visits need to show more potential as an effective patient-centered treatment strategy based on more research and advanced practice.
在新冠疫情期间，全球医疗机构都实施了针对患者的探视限制政策，并正在使用替代通信技术进行探视。这一转变也需要利用平台来防止这些限制带来的负面影响。
本综述的目的是全面探讨在感染预防期间非面对面探视作为一种替代方式，并综合其利弊的科学证据。
通过PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane和Web of Science电子数据库进行全面检索；检索临床试验注册库ClinicalTrials.gov中的未发表试验；以及截至2021年9月10日的弗吉尼亚·亨德森国际护理图书馆。检索查询是根据电子检索策略同行评审的指南制定的，包括远程医疗和探视限制主题的关键词。纳入标准为在医院环境中与家人使用远程医疗的非面对面方式、实验性和观察性研究以及用英语撰写的文章。排除标准为全文不可获取、与患者或家属参与无关、主要关注研究方案或仅讨论远程医疗的利弊。
总体而言，患者家属因面对面探视受限而经历情绪困扰。弥补这些限制的非面对面虚拟探视对降低患者和家属的感染风险有积极作用。这进一步促进了心理和身体恢复，并减轻了心理困扰。然而，非面对面虚拟技术无法取代实际家属的陪伴，网络和设备的技术问题被报告为局限性。
确保技术的可用性并根据患者及其家属的特点进行相关教育，基于更多的研究和先进实践，非面对面虚拟探视作为一种以患者为中心的有效治疗策略需要展现出更大的潜力。
