Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Sep 25;25(1):347.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03763-7.

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

Stephana J Moss  1 , Karla D Krewulak  1 , Henry T Stelfox  1 , Sofia B Ahmed  2 , Melanie C Anglin  1 , Sean M Bagshaw  3 , Karen E A Burns  4 , Deborah J Cook  5 , Christopher J Doig  1 , Alison Fox-Robichaud  5 , Robert Fowler  6 , Laura Hernández  1 , Michelle E Kho  7 , Maia Kredentser  8 , Kira Makuk  1 , Srinivas Murthy  9 , Daniel J Niven  1 , Kendiss Olafson  10 , Ken Kuljit S Parhar  1 , Scott B Patten  11 , Oleksa G Rewa  12 , Bram Rochwerg  5 , Bonnie Sept  1 , Andrea Soo  13 , Krista Spence  1 , Sean Spence  14 , Sharon Straus  6 , Andrew West  15 , Jeanna Parsons Leigh  16 , Kirsten M Fiest  17
Affiliations

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

Stephana J Moss et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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%).

Conclusions: 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.

Keywords: Acute care; COVID-19; Family presence; Hospital Policy; Visitors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Record selection flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Total number of reported A impacts1 and B perspectives2 of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members, and healthcare professionals, by number of visitors allower per patient*. 1Eighteen unique included records specified restricted visitation policies and assessed impact on participants quantitatively. 2Seventy-eight unique included records specified restricted visitation policies and reported perspectives from participants
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kleinpell R, Zimmerman J, Vermoch KL, Harmon LA, Vondracek H, Hamilton R, Hanson B, Hwang DY. Promoting family engagement in the ICU: experience from a national collaborative of 63 ICUs. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(12):1692–1698. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goldfarb MJ, Bibas L, Bartlett V, Jones H, Khan N. Outcomes of patient- and family-centered care interventions in the ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(10):1751–1761. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002624. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rosa RG, Falavigna M, da Silva DB, Sganzerla D, Santos MMS, Kochhann R, de Moura RM, Eugenio CS, Haack T, Barbosa MG, et al. Effect of flexible family visitation on delirium among patients in the intensive care unit: the ICU visits randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(3):216–228. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.8766. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Burns KEA, Devlin JW, Hill NS. Patient and family engagement in designing and implementing a weaning trial: a novel research paradigm in critical care. Chest. 2017;152(4):707–711. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.06.028. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hurst H, Griffiths J, Hunt C, Martinez E. A realist evaluation of the implementation of open visiting in an acute care setting for older people. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):867. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4653-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding