TABLE 2.
Prioritized Experiences Identified in Round 2a
| Domain 1: ExperiencesPrioritized Experiences From Round 2 | Theme Mean (sd) | Item Mean (sd) |
|---|---|---|
| Theme 1: Impact on patients and their families during restricted visitation | ||
| Patients experienced isolation, loneliness or decreased interaction and connection with the healthcare team | 16.7 (2.7) | 23.2 (15.4) |
| Family absence at the end-of-life or did not visit before their loved one was sedated or intubated | 20.2 (12.6) | |
| Families did not understand how sick the patient was | 19.5 (11.8) | |
| Theme 2: Impact on patient- and family-centered care during restricted visitation | ||
| It was challenging to accurately convey the patient’s clinical status and appropriateness of care to families. It is important for family to understand treatment and therapy to be able to make appropriate choices | 16.7 (1.6) | 20.7 (12.4) |
| Family was not present to take part in key elements of patient care (e.g., physiotherapy), which may have impacted the health status of their loved one | 19.4 (10.8) | |
| Theme 3: Impact on healthcare professionals | ||
| Psychosocial impact to healthcare professionals due to moral distress (e.g., gatekeepers to family visitation, patients dying alone) and anxiety due to ever changing restricted visitation policies | 10.0 (0.9) | 14.4 (8.6) |
| Difficult to communicate rapidly changing visitation policies to family, or when communication about changes to visitation policies were distributed on weekends, evenings, or end of day on Friday | 12.7 (8.5) | |
| Healthcare professionals were conflicted between advocating against the policy (to prioritize patient well-being) and advocating for the policy (to protect the healthcare system) | 11.8 (8.5) | |
| Sense of tension and lack of trust among healthcare professionals and policy makers. This was often due to variation in the interpretation or application of restricted visitation policy details | 11.4 (6.7) | |
| Theme 4: Alternatives to in-person visitation | ||
| Clinical circumstances limited the capacity for patients to communicate or interact with families (e.g., patient who were intubated, patients who were proned, etc.) | 20.0 (2.8) | 27.9 (12.4) |
| Variability in patients, families, and healthcare professional’s comfort and access to technology for supported virtual communication | 23.7 (13.9) | |
aFor full list of item rankings in Round 2 (see Supplementary Table 5, http://links.lww.com/CCX/A825).