Perspectives from designated family caregivers of critically ill adult patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Family visitation in intensive care units (ICU) has been impacted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19) pandemic. While studies report on perceptions of families completely restricted from ICUs, little is known about the burden experienced by designated family caregivers allowed to visit their critically ill loved one. This study sought the perspectives of family caregivers of critically ill patients on the impact of one-person designated visitor policies mandated in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: Throughout the study period a restricted visitation policy was mandated capturing the first (April 2020) and second (December 2020) waves of the pandemic that allowed one designated family caregiver (i.e., spouses or adult children) per patient to visit the ICU. Designated family caregivers of critically ill patients admitted to ICU September 2020 to November 2020 took part in individual 60-minute, semi-structured interviews at 6-months after discharge from the index ICU admission. Themes from family interviews were summarized with representative quotations.
RESULTS: Key themes identified following thematic analysis from six participants included: one visitor rule, patient advocate role, information needs, emotional distress, strategies for coping with challenges, practicing empathy, and appreciation of growth.
CONCLUSION: Designated family caregivers of critically ill patients admitted to ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic perceived a complex and highly stressful experience. Support from ICU family liaisons and psychologists may help ameliorate the impact.

Introduction

Critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are among the sickest patients in the healthcare system given their need for urgent treatment with life sustaining technologies [1]. Family caregivers of critically ill patients experience distress, as witnessing critical illness and intense ICU therapies can elicit feelings of helplessness [2]. Family caregivers frequently experience long-lasting, negative psychological consequences, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, emotional distress, and sleep disturbances [3].

In response to the burden of critical illness for family caregivers of ICU patients, the Society of Critical Care Medicine Guideline for Patient and Family-Centred Care recommends regular visitation between family caregivers and ICU patients to improve outcomes (e.g., distress) [4, 5] and experiences (e.g., satisfaction) [6, 7] among ICU patients and their families. Most hospitals, including the intensive care units, enacted restricted visitation policies as part of infection control measures [8] to limit spread of the COVID-19 virus, reduce use of personal protective equipment, and to facilitate organizing care [9, 10]. Well-intentioned, restricted visitation policies may have unintended negative consequences on family caregivers, such as grief over inadequate communication and sparse involvement in the provision of care [11, 12]. Designated family caregivers of critically ill patients admitted to ICUs that mandated one-person designated visitor policies faced additional challenges when having to deliver medical information to other family members that were restricted from visiting [13, 14].

Restricted visitation in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to long-term detriment [15]. Perspectives from designated family caregivers of critically ill patients are unknown. The objective of this study was to describe perspectives of designated family caregivers of critically ill patients on the impact of one-person designated visitor policies mandated in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Study design

This qualitative study was conducted at Foothills Medical Centre ICU (Calgary, AB, Canada) between September 2020 to November 2020. A restricted visitation policy was mandated throughout the study period (March 2020 to May 2021); capturing the (entire) first and second waves and (part of the) third wave of the pandemic that allowed one designated family caregiver per patient to visit. We used a qualitative descriptive approach [16] with data collected from semi-structured interviews with designated family caregivers (i.e., spouses or adult children designated to visit the ICU routinely) of critically ill patients in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (S1 Table) [17]. The Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary approved this study (Ethics ID: REB19-1000). Informed consent and oral consent were sought from all participants that agreed to be interviewed.

Selection and description of participants

We used a convenience sample, of designated family caregivers who participated in another (ongoing) study by our group and indicated interest in being contacted to participate in additional research projects [18]. Family caregivers were adults (≥18 years), able to understand and communicate in English, and able to provide informed consent. We invited family caregivers using the contact information they provided (e-mail or telephone).

Semi-structured interview guide

A multidisciplinary research team (patient partner (B.S.), doctoral student (S.M.), research assistant (I.Y.), research associate (K.K), epidemiologist (K.F.), and qualitative research expert (J.P.L.)) created a draft semi-structured interview guide based on research experience and relevant literature [14, 19, 20]. For feedback and to ensure quality control, draft semi-structured interview guides were presented to a patient partner (M.A., a community member involved with our research team) and their family caregiver (J.A.), as well as a research coordinator (C.G.), all of whom had no prior involvement in the research study. A revised interview guide was then drafted, and pilot tested independently on three occasions in interviews with two critical care nurses (K.W., V.O.), and an intensivist (N.J.). The set interview guide was refined iteratively based on feedback from pilot interviews; no further edits were required after this point (S2 Table).

Data collection

Demographic data on patients and family caregivers was collected upon enrollment in the larger RCT. Telephone interviews were conducted by S.M. who has experience planning and facilitating semi-structured interviews. Two days prior to each interview, participants (with e-mail access) were sent information about the interview objectives. Participant oral consent was obtained by the research team prior to the start of each interview. All interviews were conducted within 60-minutes, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified, and imported to NVivo-12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) for data management.

Data analysis

We analyzed demographic data by using descriptive statistics. All variables were categorical and reported as counts and proportions. Analysis of qualitative data was conducted concurrently and iteratively using a thematic synthesis approach published by Braun and Clarke [21]. We used a data-driven inductive approach to coding [22] that allowed our working knowledge of the topic [23] to guide the structure of interview discussions while permitting themes to emerge directly from the data [24]. The coding process included two coders (S.M., K.K.) who carefully read all transcripts before coding one-third of the data set to generate initial codes. Once the initial set of codes was developed, coders switched transcripts to ensure that all were coded in duplicate. The two coders searched for themes by collating codes across the data set and met biweekly for one month to refine themes and discuss progress. Two participants were provided with a copy of the final list of themes and sub-themes to review and comment on to ensure credibility, accuracy, and validity. We formally compared themes across participants and compared interpretations across researchers in order to ensure analytic rigor.

Results

Participants

Ten designated family caregivers participated in another study by our group from September 2020 to November 2020, of which eight (n = 8, 80%) indicated interest in being contacted to participate in additional research projects through a telephone call (n = 2, 25%) or an e-mail invitation (n = 6, 75%) (Fig 1). Six (75%) family caregivers agreed to participate in the telephone interview. Interviews were conducted at an average of 6.3 months (standard deviation [SD] 2.3) post-ICU discharge.

Fig 1

Flow diagram of selection of family caregivers for interviews.

Family caregivers were mostly female (n = 4, 67%), of North American descent (n = 4, 67%), and had completed some university/college, without receiving a degree (n = 4, 67%). Half (n = 3, 50%) of the participants were spouses of critically ill patients (Table 1). Some family caregivers (n = 2, 33%) self-reported being diagnosed or treated for depression (prior to ICU admission) and half (n = 3, 50%) self-reported being diagnosed or treated for anxiety (prior to ICU admission). Critically ill patients (related to family caregiver participants) were mostly male (n = 4, 67%) with either some high school (n = 2, 33%) or a Master’s degree (n = 2, 33%). No patient was diagnosed with the COVID-19 virus prior to or during their ICU stay.

Table 1

Demographics of designated family caregiver participants and their critically ill loved one admitted to an intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Demographic	Family Caregivers (N = 6)	Critically Ill Patients (N = 6)
Sex 1
Male	2 (33.3%)	4 (66.7%)
Female	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)
Gender 2
Male	2 (33.3%)	4 (66.7%)
Female	4 (66.7%)	2 (33.3%)
Ethnic or cultural group 3
Other North American	4 (66.7%)	3 (50.0%)
First Nations	1 (16.7%)	0 (00.0%)
Eastern European	2 (33.3%)	2 (33.3%)
Western European	2 (33.3%)	1 (16.7%)
British Isles	1 (16.7%)	0 (00.0%)
Education 4
Some high school	0 (00.0%)	2 (33.3%)
High school graduate	0 (00.0%)	1 (16.7%)
Some university/college (no degree)	4 (66.7%)	0 (00.0%)
Bachelor’s degree	2 (33.3%)	0 (00.0%)
Master’s degree	0 (00.0%)	2 (33.3%)
Professional degree	0 (00.0%)	1 (16.7%)
Relationship to patient
Spouse or Common-Law	3 (50.0%)	--
Adult Child	3 (50.0%)	--
Considered primary caregiver 5
Yes	6 (100.0%)	--
No	0 (00.0%)	--
Clinically relevant depression 6
Yes	2 (33.3%)	--
No	4 (66.7%)	--
Clinically relevant anxiety 6
Yes	3 (50.0%)	--
No	3 (50.0%)	--

Numbers are counts with percentages. Dashes indicate that the question was not asked.

1Recorded at birth

2Reported as gender identity

3Multiple selections per participant were allowed

4Highest degree received

5During patient stay in the ICU and after discharge from hospital

6Relating to direct medical treatment by a healthcare professional prior to ICU admission as self-reported by the participant

Family caregiver perceptions

Designated family caregivers of critically ill patients admitted to ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic perceived a complex and highly stressful experience. Support from ICU family liaisons and psychologists may help ameliorate the impact. Participants described their experiences with having to process their loved one’s prognosis and treatment information, engage in shared decision making, and then relay information to family members who were not allowed to visit.

Seven themes related to caring for a critically ill patient as the designated family caregiver during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified in the data: (1) one visitor rule (mandated in restricted visitation policies); (2) patient advocate role (being present to weigh in with the clinical care team); (3) information needs (receiving regular and clear information); (4) emotional distress (toward their critically ill loved one); (5) strategies for coping with challenges (related to restricted visitation policies); (6) practicing empathy (with members of the ICU care team); and (7) appreciation of growth (despite hardships) (Table 2).

Table 2

Perspectives of designated family caregivers on caring for critically ill loved ones admitted to an intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Themes	Quotes
One Visitor Rule	At that time, one visitor was allowed that had to be the same visitor. So, our children were not allowed to visit, which was really hard on them all. Okay, we thought, we have to deal with this. (Spouse)I just couldn’t imagine him being there all by himself—I just had to be there, it was very important to me. (Son)It was absolutely harder because of COVID. I felt like I had to be there all of the time because only one person was allowed, and I didn’t ever want him to feel like he was alone. He didn’t understand why the kids couldn’t be there—that made it very hard, not being able to have that support. (Spouse)
Patient Advocate Role	I was there and I saw the lung exercises, so then I could quiz him later on. I asked, did you do it, do you remember how long you’re supposed to do it? You’re supposed to do it every hour. Are you doing it? Those people out there really care, and I want you to do your lung exercise. But what I know is that is that was just a phone call [if no visitors were allowed in the ICU]l, I wouldn’t know those specifics and I wouldn’t be able to watch and be an advocate. (Spouse)Even though I was the only one in there I was never asked to pipe up, to tell them about what he is really like, to advocate—I didn’t know how you know, being alone. (Spouse)The lessons learned is I wish I would have been more involved in rounding. I wish I would’ve been more invited. I know it’s hard right now, given [COVID-19] restrictions, but if I was even just listening, I would have felt included. (Daughter)
Information Needs	I’m a very curious person and I like to know what’s going on. So, I spent a long time asking questions whenever they were there. The staff was very good at giving us answers, but yet a lot of the time we were waiting—sitting and waiting or going back and forth and waiting for them to come to your patient. (Daughter)I was afraid to ask questions. I felt isolated. Not a lot of information was given. I felt intimidated. (Spouse)I had to give daily updates to everybody. I would wait for a report and then I would go out to call everybody, let them know how he was doing. So many calls—I had to make myself a pretty decent schedule. The only things I had time for were to come in [to the ICU], make all my calls, go back to the hotel, turn on TV for a few minutes and then go to bed. (Spouse)
Emotional Distress	It was an emotional and very difficult experience. I felt scared, left out, kind of anxious. (Daughter)I spent many hours just sitting there wondering, you know, listening to machines, beeping, very loudly. I was on an emotional rollercoaster—I couldn’t find solitude. (Spouse)I think that you fool yourself into thinking that you’re okay. I’m okay. I’m okay. I’m okay, I kept saying. You just are running on adrenaline, right. I didn’t relax until he left ICU and I know it’s the times, right. I had to tell myself that it was fine…initially anyway. (Spouse)
Strategies for Coping with Challenges	I knew my lifestyle. I had to eat better, you know, as far as getting some sleep at night. And so, sometimes I wouldn’t come back a second time, and there was one time I remember I actually felt really guilty. (Son)I’m very scheduled. So, I made myself a daily schedule. Mostly for my own mental health. (Son)I made myself a decent schedule… day in and day out. That helped for all of us. (Spouse)I wrote everything down. I would write it down, what the care team said for the entire day, and then at end of each day I would write everything in a second book that I left for my husband so that he could look back and find what he needed to know, even when I wasn’t there. (Spouse)
Practicing Empathy	Being able to talk to them [the ICU care team] provided a feeling of solidarity. They were going through a hard time. You know, you do take an interest in other people who are always there. The talking helped, like teamwork. (Son)I would suggest a [virtual] peer group of people that have to deal with these issues, so we can exchange coping mechanisms and ideas, and show empathy for others, you know, that would be helpful. (Spouse)
Appreciation of Growth	I mean, once you’ve been through these stressful, traumatic, draining situations, you look back and reflect and think, great, I can do tough things because I’ve dealt with a lot. (Spouse)I’m very happy that it’s over. It gets better and I’ve learned a lot—I’ve grown and hey, that’s not what I was expecting to say. (Son)

One visitor rule

Participants from all interviews provided their perspectives on the challenge of adhering to the one designated visitor policy. Difficult for all, this policy was especially burdensome to families with young children: “At that time, one visitor was allowed that had to be the same visitor. So, our children were not allowed to visit, which was really hard on them all.” (Spouse). Most designated family caregivers agreed about the guilt when absent from the unit: “I just couldn’t imagine him being there all by himself—I just had to be there, it was very important to me” (Adult Child). One family caregiver remarked that not having external support (present with them in the ICU) was challenging:

It was absolutely harder because of COVID. I felt like I had to be there all of the time because only one person was allowed, and I didn’t ever want him to feel like he was alone. He didn’t understand why the kids couldn’t be there—that made it very hard, not being able to have that support.

(Spouse)

Patient advocate role

All designated family caregivers shared their perspectives on the importance of being present that provided an opportunity for the family caregiver (who knows the patient best) to weigh in on subtleties they may notice in the patient’s overall demeanor. Family caregivers took opportunities to be actively involved in care of their loved one:

I was there and I saw the breathing exercises, so then I could quiz him later on. I asked, did you do it, do you remember how long you’re supposed to do it? You’re supposed to do it every hour. Are you doing it? Those people out there really care, and I want you to do your breathing exercise. But what I know is that if that was just a phone call [if no visitors were allowed in the ICU], I wouldn’t know those specifics and I wouldn’t be able to watch and be an advocate.

(Spouse)

In contrast, some family caregivers described feeling distress about being involved in patient care and were waiting to be asked to weigh in. One family caregiver remarked: “Even though I was the only one there I was never asked to pipe up, to tell them about what he is really like, to advocate—I didn’t know how you know, being alone” (Spouse). The lack of invitation evoked feelings of isolation in one family caregiver: “The lesson learned is I wish I would have been more involved in rounding. I wish I would’ve been more invited. I know it’s hard right now, given [COVID-19] restrictions, but if I was even just listening, I would have felt included” (Adult Child).

Information needs

Participants shared their need to receive regular and clear information from the healthcare team regarding their loved one. One family caregiver began to ask questions in order to feel more involved: “I’m a very curious person and I like to know what’s going on. So, I spent a long time asking questions whenever they were there. The staff was very good at giving us answers, but yet a lot of the time we were waiting—sitting and waiting or going back and forth and waiting for them to come to your patient” (Adult Child). However, despite being present, designated family caregivers felt absent without the support of their family in the ICU. A spouse pronounced: “I was afraid to ask questions. I felt isolated. Not a lot of information was given. I felt intimidated” (Spouse). In addition, participants unanimously described the burden of having to relay medical information to remaining family members who were not allowed to visit in the ICU. The significance of other family members in the ICU was conspicuous by their absence:

I had to give daily updates to everybody. I would wait for a report and then I would go out to call everybody, let them know how he was doing. So many calls—I had to make myself a pretty decent schedule. The only things I had time for were to come in [to the ICU], make all my calls, go back to the hotel, turn on TV for a few minutes and then go to bed.

(Spouse)

Emotional distress

Designated family caregivers described feeling emotionally distressed for their critically ill loved one. One family caregiver recalled: “It was an emotional and very difficult experience. I felt scared, left out, kind of anxious” (Adult Child). Families were mindful of the unnatural and lonely feeling of being in the ICU without other family members: “I spent many hours just sitting there wondering, you know, listening to machines, beeping, very loudly. I was on an emotional rollercoaster—I couldn’t find solitude” (Spouse). Caring for a critically ill patient without support of other family, during a pandemic, sometimes involved self-affirmations:

I think that you fool yourself into thinking that you’re okay. I’m okay. I’m okay. I’m okay, I kept saying. You just are running on adrenaline. Right? I didn’t relax until he left ICU and I know it’s the times, right. I had to tell myself that it was fine…initially anyway.

(Spouse)

Strategies for coping with challenges

“Mostly for my own mental health” (Adult Child), while others echoed: “I made myself a decent schedule… day in and day out. That helped for all of us” (Spouse). When hospitalized, separated, and isolated at night, one spouse recounted their strategy to cope with the challenge of restricted visitation:

I wrote everything down. I would write it down, what the care team said for the entire day, and then at end of each day I would write everything in a second book that I left for my husband so that he could look back and find what he needed to know, even when I wasn’t there.

(Spouse)

Practicing empathy

Participants described practicing empathy with members of the ICU care team, rather than other family caregivers, as waiting rooms were closed and caregivers from different families were not allowed to interact in the ICU. Bearing witness to the challenges faced by other family caregivers, one adult child shared: “Being able to talk to them [the ICU care team] provided a feeling of solidarity. They were going through a hard time. The talking helped, like teamwork” (Adult Child). Families recommended potential avenues for designated family caregivers to provide support to each other throughout restricted visitation: “I would suggest a [virtual] peer group of people that have to deal with these issues, so we can exchange coping mechanisms and ideas, and show empathy for others, you know, that would be helpful” (Spouse).

Appreciation of growth

All designated family caregivers who participated shared their perspectives of the negative impact of the pandemic and shared lessons learned from providing care:

I mean, once you’ve been through these stressful, traumatic, draining situations, you look back and reflect and think, great, I can do tough things because I’ve dealt with a lot.

(Spouse)

In the end, designated family caregivers, tired and isolated, described the influence of being resilient on their own, personal growth: “I’m very happy that it’s over. It gets better and I’ve learned a lot—I’ve grown and hey, that’s not what I was expecting to say” (Adult Child).

Discussion

We conducted a semi-structured interview study to explore perspectives of family caregivers of critically ill patients on the impact of one-person designated visitor policies mandated in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings indicated that practices to control spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus changed visitation in the ICU, which transformed the way family caregivers cared for their critically ill loved one. In the context of one-person designated visitor policies in the ICU, these changes led to complex situations that had communication and emotional consequences for family caregivers. The unintended repercussions experienced by designated family caregivers largely hinged on the notion that despite being physically present, designated family caregivers felt helpless and isolated from the ICU care team, and guilt related to being the only family member allowed to visit.

Supporting family caregivers is fundamental to the practice of critical care medicine [6] that is rarely easy [25] and has been more challenging in the COVID-19 pandemic [26]. Even with uninterrupted bedside access and idyllic support, family caregivers have high risk of long-term physical and mental health problems [27]. A one designated visitor policy at our institution that was similar to mandated policies at other Canadian [28, 29] and American [30, 31] institutions meant that if two family members were present when their loved one was admitted, they were forced to choose: who will sit alone, vigil, at the bedside, and who will walk away, leaving their critically ill family member and grieving partner behind?

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in limitations on family caregiver engagement in the ICU and participation in care that completely reengineered their methods to cope and had potential implications on their well-being [32-34]. The issue is that public health, without an understanding of ICU care, broadly directed hospital restrictions usually without an understanding of potential adverse impact and without input and/or feedback from healthcare providers [35]. The evidence that these interventions mitigated spread of the virus (their benefit) was never measured compared to the negative impact to patients and families against which they were applied (the harm) [15, 36–37]. The data suggests that there was harm, and that this should be considered for future pandemic planning which needs to include perspectives from family caregivers on how to best mitigate the negative effects of restricted visitation [38]. Most research has reported on short-term impacts of restricted visitation policies, few including perspectives from family caregivers themselves, and longer-term consequences of restricted visitation policies are vastly understudied [39-41]. In particular, experiences of family caregivers forced to decide between visiting their loved one or to place themselves at risk of infection from COVID-19 before the understanding of COVID and availability of vaccination. Added care for ICU family caregivers that emphasizes respect, dignity, and humanization, might come in the form of long-term support plans delivered by ICU family liaison teams [42-44] and psychologists [45-47] that may help to ameliorate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on designated family caregivers of critically ill patients.

Prior to mandated restricted visitation policies, studies report families being offered an increasingly active role in the ICU in the participation in patient care (e.g., hygiene, orientation, mobility) [48, 49]. This is related to a growing awareness that family caregivers of ICU patients have specific needs including information to understand the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment in the patient [50], and support in dealing with psychological distress [51]. Participation in care helps to provide families with a feeling of closeness to the patient [52] that may facilitate their sensemaking about the critical illness [53], thus alleviating their stress [54]. Performing some patient care usually left to healthcare professionals may help families to understand the caring nature of ICU treatments, which may otherwise seem highly invasive [55]. Family participation in care can also play a role in decreasing feelings of powerlessness [56] and contribute to a sense of usefulness that may help to alleviate negative mental health consequences such as guilt, grief, or burden [57]. Furthermore, a role in patient care for families may help the care team to emphasize that families are not just visitors but welcome and appreciated members in the ICU [58]. Participation in care is associated with better satisfaction among family caregivers [59]; thus, it is suggested that healthcare professionals should consider encouraging family caregivers (who wish to do so) to participate in patient care with the support of the ICU care team [52, 60, 61].

The strengths of this study include that the interview guide was informed by narratives reported in the COVID-19 pandemic [62-65], co-designed with researchers, patients, and clinicians, and tested in a pilot study with critical care nurses and intensivists. Interviews were conducted individually and at length, which allowed caregiver’s time and space to share perspectives to offer important insights on the psychological burden that afflicts designated family caregivers. There are limitations to consider when interpreting the findings of our study. First, the number of participants included in this study was dependent on the interest of family caregivers in being contacted to participate in additional research projects; other studies were paused many times to conserve resources (i.e., personal protective equipment, staff) to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited recruitment. We did not assess non-designated family members and it is possible that important perspectives were missed. Second, we chose a 6-month follow-up as we were cautious about grief experienced by family caregivers who lost loved ones to critical illness [66, 67]. Third, this is a single-centre qualitative study including six family caregivers that may not be transportable to other ICU settings. Additional interviews to collect data past code saturation in order to assess meaning saturation are required for transferability of our results [68]. Finally, our small sampling frame did not achieve adequate representation of sex, gender, education, and socioeconomic status and we were not able to explore sociocultural factors, including cognitive and linguistic barriers, which might impact communication [69, 70].

Conclusions

Designated family caregivers of critically ill patients in the ICU perceived that restricted visitation policies mandated to control COVID-19 had unintended negative repercussions. The one-person designated visitor policy meant that the designated family caregiver had to process their loves one’s prognosis and treatment, make life-changing decisions, and then relay this information to remaining family in addition to coping with their own concerns. Long-term support plans for family caregivers of critically ill patients delivered by ICU family liaison teams and psychologists may help to ameliorate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on designated family caregivers of critically ill patients. Further research with larger and more diverse sample sizes are required to validate our findings from this hypothesis-generating work.

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Interview guide.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marie-Pascale Pomey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall Comments

- This was an interesting and well written piece. However, more work is required, particularly at the level of description and interpretation of the results. See specific comments below.

Reviewer #2: See comments in document. Need information about the main study.

In general, The manuscript described a specific clinical event and social impact. It is a novelty in science. The small sample sizes gave some data to discuss but the conclusion needs to be adresses differently . Experiments seem to have been conducted rigorously, but details in need it in methodology and more information regarding the main research is need it. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Bertrand Lebouché MD, PhD

Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University

Anish K. Arora, PhD(c), MSc, BSc (Hons)

PhD Candidate, Family Medicine & Primary Care, McGill University, Vanier Scholar, Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-35872.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

8 Sep 2022

September 8, 2022

Emily Chenette, PhD

Editor-in-Chief, PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chenette:

Re: Revised Submission PONE-D-21-35872

Thank you for reviewing our paper entitled “Perspectives from Designated Family Caregivers of Critically Ill Adult Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Interview Study” and for inviting us to revise and resubmit. In response to the reviewers’ feedback, we revised the paper and believe we have improved the overall quality and applicability of our original research paper.

In this Response Letter, we provide an item-by-item response to comments from all Reviewers, and the exact location of each revision (Section, Page, Paragraph) in the new (revised) manuscript. All changes made to the text of the manuscript are shown in yellow highlight. Each comment (verbatim) by the Reviewer is followed by our detailed response, with any relevant text changes provided in quotations.

Thank you for considering our manuscript for publication. It is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, nor has it been presented in any form; we look forward to your decision.

Yours sincerely,

Kirsten Fiest, PhD

Associate Professor, Departments of Critical Care Medicine, Community Health Sciences, & Psychiatry

Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

Director, Research & Innovation, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Alberta Health Services

Journal Requirements

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

RESPONSE: Thank you for providing PLOS ONE’s style requirements that were followed closely in preparing our revised manuscript and associated files. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are additional requirements that were missed.

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

RESPONSE: Thank you for providing the information required for our Data Availability statement. Below is our statement that is also provided on page 19 of our revised manuscript:

Data cannot be shared publicly because of ethical restriction (i.e., patient confidentiality; data contains potentially sensitive information). Data may be available upon reasonable request from the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board and Alberta Health Services research and innovation administration (contact via chreb@ucalgary.ca and research. administration@ahs.ca) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Reviewer #2: See comments in document. Need information about the main study.

In general, The manuscript described a specific clinical event and social impact. It is a novelty in science. The small sample sizes gave some data to discuss but the conclusion needs to be adresses differently . Experiments seem to have been conducted rigorously, but details in need it in methodology and more information regarding the main research is need it. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

1. Abstract: Date? Period?

RESPONSE: We appreciate that additional information is required to describe when the first and second waves occurred in geographical location. This information has been added to our Abstract (page 9) with the referenced statement that now reads as follows:

“Throughout the study period a restricted visitation policy was mandated capturing the first (April 2020) and second (December 2020) waves of the pandemic that allowed one designated family caregiver (i.e., spouses or adult children) per patient to visit the ICU.”

2. Data Collection: How was selected the study population? How many patients was asked to participate before reaching 6 people?

RESPONSE: Thank you for your inquiries. We have provided information on how the study population was selected on page 4 of our revised manuscript. We have clarified that the original study is currently ongoing and have provided the reference to the published protocol for the ongoing, original study.

“We used a convenience sample, of designated family caregivers who participated in another (ongoing) study by our group and indicated interest in being contacted to participate in additional research projects [18].”

Information on how many individuals were asked to participate is provided on page 6 of our revised manuscript that reads as follows:

“Ten designated family caregivers participated in another study by our group from September 2020 to November 2020, of which eight (n=8, 80%) indicated interest in being contacted to participate in additional research projects through a telephone call (n=2, 25%) or an e-mail invitation (n=6, 75%) (Figure 1).”

3. Participants: These are data describing the patient, not the study population. To clarify

RESPONSE: Thank you for your suggestion to clarify the presentation of our demographic information. The revised sentence on page 7 of our manuscript reads as follows:

“Critically ill patients (related to family caregiver participants) were mostly male (n=4, 67%) with either some high school (n=2, 33%) or a Master’s degree (n=2, 33%).”

4. Family Caregiver Perceptions: Confused, to be explain

RESPONSE: Thank you for your comment that indicated that perhaps a short description after each of the presented themes would be helpful to situate the reader to our findings. On page 9 of our revised manuscript, we have added brief descriptions after each of the six themes, including the ‘one visitor rule’ that was highlighted in your comment. This sentence now reads as follows:

“Seven themes related to caring for a critically ill patient as the designated family caregiver during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified in the data: (1) one visitor rule (mandated in restricted visitation policies); (2) patient advocate role (being present to weigh in with the clinical care team); (3) information needs (receiving regular and clear information); (4) emotional distress (toward their critically ill loved one); (5) strategies for coping with challenges (related to restricted visitation policies); (6) practicing empathy (with members of the ICU care team); and (7) appreciation of growth (despite hardships) (Table 2).”

5. Discussion: It will important to discuss the fear of caregivers of having COVID vs going in Hospital, particularly before the Understanding of COVID and introduction of vaccination. Risk vs benefits

RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer that this is an important information that should be included in our discussion. We have added the following statements to page 16 of our revised manuscript to highlight the dearth of information regarding experiences and perspectives of family caregivers in COVID-19, particularly when forced to choose between visiting their loved one or risk of viral infection.

“Most research has reported on short-term impacts of restricted visitation policies, few including perspectives from family caregivers themselves, and longer-term consequences of restricted visitation policies are vastly understudied [40-42]. In particular, experiences of family caregivers forced to decide between visiting their loved one or to place themselves at risk of infection from COVID-19 before the understanding of COVID and availability of vaccination.”

15 Sep 2022

Perspectives from Designated Family Caregivers of Critically Ill Adult Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Interview Study

PONE-D-21-35872R1

Dear Dr. Fiest,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marie-Pascale Pomey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

19 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-35872R1

Perspectives from Designated Family Caregivers of Critically Ill Adult Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Interview Study

Dear Dr. Fiest:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marie-Pascale Pomey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE