Adam J Boulton1,2, Helen Jordan3, Claire E Adams3, Petra Polgarova4, Andrew Conway Morris4,5, Nitin Arora1. 1. Academic Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care, Pain and Resuscitation, Heartlands Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 2. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 3. Intensive Care Unit, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 4. Division of Anaesthesia, Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 5. John V Farman Intensive Care Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
The COVID-19 pandemic has placed significant demand upon intensive care units (ICUs)
across the NHS.[1] Dilution and stretching of professional resources has challenged
ICUs to continue to deliver high quality direct clinical care.[2] Frequent
communication with a patient’s next of kin and family is a regular and vital part of
normal ICU care.[3],[4] Typically, family are informed when their relative is
admitted to ICU and receive regular updates thereafter, particularly if there is
clinical deterioration.[4] This regular communication is being challenged by the high
volume of patients being cared for and infection control considerations. Most
families will frequently visit their next of kin in ICU and witness them undergoing
intensive care therapies, such as invasive ventilation.[5],[6] It is an extremely stressful
and worrying time for a family when their relative is critically ill and being cared
for within an ICU. Visiting their relative and regularly communicating with the ICU
medical and nursing teams is a priority for many families and crucial to coping with
such a difficult situation.[5],[6] Family members physically seeing their next of kin may help
them to understand how critically ill their relative is and the invasive nature of
intensive care. Visiting relatives at the end of life is fundamental within many
cultures and is a crucial part of the grieving process for the bereaved.[7]Restrictions to hospital visiting policies during the COVID-19 pandemic have left
families unable to visit their next of kin in ICU and receive face-to-face updates
from the clinical team.[2],[8],[9] This may be creating additional stresses and difficulties
for families and ICU teams. Anecdotally, some ICU teams are communicating with
families during the COVID-19 pandemic by telephone updates, dedicated family
communication teams, and video calling.[2],[10],[11] Additionally, visiting during
end of life care has also been affected and there have been reports of families
being unable to visit their relatives.[12] Given the intensified
clinical care demands, infection control considerations, and the importance of
relative visiting and communication with ICU teams, it is of interest what the
visiting practices of ICUs are during the COVID-19 pandemic and how ICU teams are
communicating with patient families. We aimed to investigate how UK ICUs are
approaching family communications and visiting during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods
This snapshot survey was delivered between 16th April and 24th May 2020 and was open
to all UK ICUs. A questionnaire was designed by a team of intensive care clinicians
from across the UK (Supplementary File 1). Questions addressed visiting practices
prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, regular communication with families, and
communication with families regarding resuscitation decisions and at the end of
life. The questionnaire used multi-choice, checkbox and free-text questions, and was
piloted at ICUs in the West Midlands with the support of the WMTRAIN trainee
network. There was a 100% response rate from West Midlands hospitals and after
iterative development, the final web-based survey was distributed nationally via the
Trainee Research in Intensive Care (TRIC) Network. It was completed by individual
clinicians regarding practices of the ICU within which they were working.Where two or more replies were received from a single unit they were combined, and
any discrepancies resolved by contacting the individual ICU. Replies were compiled
and quantitatively analysed using Microsoft Excel to produce descriptive statistics.
Free-text responses were reviewed for emergent themes and summarised with
illustrative quotes drawn out.
Results
A total of 199 replies were received and after duplicates were merged there were 135
NHS ICUs for analysis. Replies were received from all critical care network regions
of the UK. Only one ICU reported they had no COVID patients and was therefore
excluded from analysis.
Visiting times
Twenty nine (22%) units reported that no family visiting was allowed during the
COVID-19 pandemic, 71 (53%) reported visiting was allowed only for patients at
the end of life and 30 (22%) reported visiting was allowed for vulnerable
patients or those at the end of life. All units reported that visiting was more
restricted than in normal times. Fifty seven (42%) units reported that in normal
times visiting was allowed for at least 12 hours per day and just 28 (21%)
reported visiting in normal times was for less than 6 hours per day. A majority
of units reported that in normal times open visiting was permitted for
vulnerable patients or those the end of life, in addition to specified visiting
times.This was corroborated by free-text responses indicating that visiting was
considerably more restricted than normal with most units not allowing visiting,
except for vulnerable patients or those at the end of life. In end of life
circumstances, many units reported limiting visiting duration to 15 minutes
and/or limiting the number of visitors to one or two only. There was a theme
relating to assessment and acknowledgement of risk. This included counselling
visitors and supporting informed visitor decision making, use of personal
protective equipment (PPE), and advice to self-isolate for 14 days afterwards.Some units reported a flexible approach by allowing visiting for
certain patients at the discretion of the consultant and nurse in charge, whilst
one reported allowing visiting for families of healthcare workers. There
appeared concern regarding availability of PPE with one unit allowing relatives
to visit if already fit tested and able to bring their own mask.No visitors unless end of life then we get NOK in full PPE after signing
acceptance of risk form.Units reported concern over the lack of family visiting and the effect this was
having on patients and staff.We have found non-visiting to be very detrimental to patients’
psychological wellbeing. We have found a significant amount of patients
post ICU have believed their relationships have finished.It has been very difficult (psychologically and for clear communication)
for patients, relatives and staff not to have face to face
interaction.
Family communication
Nearly all ICUs (n = 130, 97%) were updating families daily during COVID-19.
Participants reported the methods their unit was using to communicate with
families, revealing that most ICUs were initiating the family update (n = 120,
92%). Daily phone calls were routinely initiated by the medical team in 75 (55%)
ICUs and by the nursing team in 50 (37%) ICUs. Thirty nine (29%) units had
developed a dedicated team for regular family updates.Many units developed communication teams and were innovative in their creation.
They utilised a wide variety of personnel, typically those with a clinical
background. This was commonly critical care nurses shielding from clinical
duties, doctors from other specialities (including ophthalmology, oncology,
cardio-thoracics), retired anaesthetists/intensivists, and medical students.
There were also reports of operating department practitioners, organ donation
nurses, general practitioners, and Macmillan cancer support nurses being
included in communication teams. Some units reported initially using
administrative staff following scripts but received poor feedback from families
and moved to using clinical staff. Units frequently identified that
communication teams initiated a brief or specifically structured daily update,
with senior nurses or ICU consultants used for more complex communication on an
ad hoc basis. Positive factors regarding communication
teams included the value of continuity and the ability to protect busy
front-line staff.Participants also reported their dissatisfaction with telephone
communication and its challenges.Not all units established communication teams, with some reporting
inability to dedicate staff to communication. One unit reported organising
visits or discussions outside the bedside window and set up marquees outside to
provide more privacy.This works a lot better than random nurses giving a bit of info who are
only on shift that day. Really good for continuity and building rapport
with families.Difficult to communicate over telephone where the relatives hang on to
each word resulting in confusion, anxiety and anger.This has been a really challenging time for our team as these are such
difficult conversations to have by phone. However the families have
generally been very grateful that we’ve contacted them daily.Many ICUs were using modern technology to support family communication, with
video calling being used by 63 (47%) units and five reporting use of vCreate
software to facilitate this. Free-text responses indicated that video calling
was also used to provide communication between awake patients and families,
typically utilising tablets and video calling applications such as WhatsApp and
FaceTime. In some units this was with dedicated unit devices, whilst in the
others they used patients’ mobile phones supported by ICU clinical staff.Video calling used frequently for families to chat to patients who are
able.We have recently acquired some iPads to facilitate video calling with
relatives during the patient's admission.
End of life and do not resuscitate family discussions
Do not attempt resuscitation and end of life family discussions were commonly
done by consultants (n = 132, 99%), followed by registrars (PGY 4-7) (n = 60,
45%). Six (4%) units reported that senior house officers (PGY 1-3) may conduct
these discussions. These discussions were most frequently phone calls initiated
by the ICU medical team (n = 129, 96%). Video calling was reported by 24 (18%),
and 15 (11%) reported that these discussions may occur in person.Many free-text responses reported the particularly challenging nature of having
these discussions over telephone and described their displeasure with the situation.End of life discussions over the phone seem horribly unfair. It is
difficult for families. And for staff.The practice we have [set] up with, whilst a good compromise, still feels
woefully short of our normal practice.
Discussion
COVID-19 has led to major changes in the way that ICUs interact with patients’
families, with significant restrictions on visiting and a shift towards
ICU-initiated distant communication rather than face-to-face consultations. Our
survey found that, compared to the pre-COVID period, visiting was heavily
restricted, being either completely halted or restricted to end of life care.
Although the responses to this have varied between units, common themes emerge.
Units distinguish between routine communication, which may be delivered by a range
of staff including those without an ICU background, and critical communication
concerning limitations of care and end of life decisions. These latter issues are
overwhelmingly delivered by experienced ICU-specialist medical and nursing staff.
Modern technology has been utilised to deliver video calling to many ICUs, ranging
from dedicated ICU-provided devices to ad-hoc use of patient telephones. Despite
innovative solutions, the situation has remained challenging and many clinicians
expressed their dissatisfaction with the service they were able to deliver for
patients, families, and staff alike.The negative impact of visiting restrictions on patients and their families remains
unmeasured but is likely to be significant and requires urgent study. Relative
visiting and family discussions are important to patients and families, in addition
to clinical staff,[5],[6] and it appears NHS ICUs have taken steps to facilitate this
during a difficult period. The range of staff used for communication may reflect
local resources, however the experience of using non-clinical staff did not appear
successful. Defining the optimal skill set of a remote communication team, with
tiered communication responses from routine to critical, may help manage future
restrictions on visiting.As the pandemic develops and knowledge around the risk to visitors and patients
grows, there will be opportunities to revise and refine communication and visiting
strategies. To what extent long term psychological sequelae may arise from the
strategies adopted, for both families and NHS staff, remains uncertain. The
responses to our survey suggest psychological distress amongst NHS staff has been
enhanced by distant communication, and the potential harms will have to be weighed
against risks of viral transmission. ICU communication and visiting occur within the
wider societal context, and the impact of a nationwide ‘lockdown’ was the context in
which this survey was conducted. It remains to be seen how this will differ as we
move into a period of more localised disease control solutions.In summary, our survey shows that the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic led to
widespread changes across UK ICUs in the way that interactions with families were
handled. There may be a role for local and national guidance as we prepare for
future outbreaks and pressures.Click here for additional data file.Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-inc-10.1177_17511437211007779 for Intensive care
unit visiting and family communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: A UK survey
by Adam J Boulton, Helen Jordan, Claire E Adams, Petra Polgarova, TRIC Network
(Corporate Author), WMTRAIN (Corporate Author) Andrew Conway Morris and Nitin
Arora in Journal of the Intensive Care Society
Authors: Philippe Quinio; Christophe Savry; Arnaud Deghelt; Matthieu Guilloux; Jean Catineau; Anne de Tinténiac Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2002-07-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Maité Garrouste-Orgeas; François Philippart; Jean François Timsit; Frédérique Diaw; Vincent Willems; Alexis Tabah; Ghylaine Bretteville; Aude Verdavainne; Benoit Misset; Jean Carlet Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Martin D Black; Margaret C Vigorito; J Randall Curtis; Gary S Phillips; Edward W Martin; Lynn McNicoll; Therese Rochon; Susan Ross; Mitchell M Levy Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jason Phua; Li Weng; Lowell Ling; Moritoki Egi; Chae-Man Lim; Jigeeshu Vasishtha Divatia; Babu Raja Shrestha; Yaseen M Arabi; Jensen Ng; Charles D Gomersall; Masaji Nishimura; Younsuck Koh; Bin Du Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Audra N Iness; Jefferson O Abaricia; Wendemi Sawadogo; Caleb M Iness; Max Duesberg; John Cyrus; Vinay Prasad Journal: Am J Med Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 5.928
Authors: Alexis Tabah; Muhammed Elhadi; Emma Ballard; Andrea Cortegiani; Maurizio Cecconi; Takeshi Unoki; Laurą Galarza; Regis Goulart Rosa; Francois Barbier; Elie Azoulay; Kevin B Laupland; Nathalie Ssi Yan Kai; Marlies Ostermann; Guy Francois; Jan J De Waele; Kirsten Fiest; Peter Spronk; Julie Benbenishty; Mariangela Pellegrini; Louise Rose Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.298