Effects of different visiting methods in ICU in the era of regular epidemic control

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-1537.2022.02.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the effect of different visiting methods in IUC in regular epidemic control.

Methods

Convenience sampling was used. 60 family members of patients admitted to the comprehensive ICU of our hospital from September to December 2020 were selected as the control group, and 60 family members of patients from January to March 2021 as the study group. Telephone communication was used in the control group, and the remote video visiting with detailed procedures was used in the research group. The two groups were compared in terms of family satisfaction, anxiety and acceptability of the ICU nurses.

Results

The total score of family satisfaction in the study group was significantly higher than that of the control group, with statistic significance [(106.92±11.35) scores vs (101.28±14.32) scores, t=2.388, P=0.019], significantly less anxious (Z=2.333, P=0.020); ICU nurse identity score was significantly higher than the control group, with statistic significance [(3.97±0.75) scores vs (3.69±0.91) scores, t=2.058, P=0.041].

Conclusion

Remote video visiting has better satisfaction of the patients' families, relieve the anxiety and has better acceptability of the ICU nurses. With further system and process optimization, it may reduce nursing work stress and promote the benign development of visiting patterns.

Key words: Regular epidemic control, Close loop management, Remote video visiting

Yanhong Jin, Yingying Li, Qiuying Xu, Changqing Xie. Effects of different visiting methods in ICU in the era of regular epidemic control[J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care & Intensive Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2022, 08(02): 110-115.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://icu.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-1537.2022.02.005

https://icu.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V08/I02/110

Figures/Tables 4

References 17

1	中华医学会重症医学分会. 《中国重症加强治疗病房(ICU)建设与管理指南》(2006) [J]. 中国危重病急救医学, 2006, 18(7): 387-388.
2	焦雪萍, 刘瑞云. 重症监护室探视模式研究进展 [J]. 护理研究, 2021, 35(5): 851-855.
3	Nassar Junior AP, Besen BAMP, Robinson CC, et al. Flexible versus restrictive visiting policies in ICUs: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Crit Care Med, 2018, 46(7): 1175-1180.
4	叶祎烜, 覃燕妮, 夏九双. ICU探视时限对患者焦虑、抑郁情绪的影响 [J]. 护理实践与研究, 2018, 15(23): 117-119.
5	吴雨晨, 姜变通, 丁楠楠, 等. 不同探视制度对ICU患者ICU获得性感染及相关因素影响的Meta分析 [J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2020, 19(1): 20-29.
6	Weaver JL, Bradley CT, Brase KJ. Family presence: visitation in the adult ICU [J]. Crit Care Nurse, 2012, 32(4): 76-78.
7	宫晓艳, 隋伟静, 庄一渝. 成人ICU弹性探视制度面临挑战质性研究的Meta整合 [J]. 护理与康复, 2021, 20(3): 1-6, 11.
8	Giannini A. The "open" ICU: not just a question of time [J]. Minerva Anestesiol, 2010, 76(2): 89-90.
9	Wasser T, Pasquale MA, Matchett SC, et al. Establishing reliability and validity of the critical care family satisfaction survey [J]. Crit Care Med, 2001, 29(1): 192-196.
10	李丽, 马修强, 赵继军. 中文版重危患者家属满意度量表信效度分析 [J]. 解放军护理杂志, 2014, 31(15): 1-4.
11	Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7 [J]. Arch Intern Med, 2006, 166(10): 1092-1097.
12	何筱衍, 李春波, 钱洁, 等. 广泛性焦虑量表在综合性医院的信度和效度研究 [J]. 上海精神医学, 2010, 22(4): 200-203.
13	陈立萍, 韦秀霞, 尹琴. 家属不同探视时长在ICU中的干预研究 [J]. 护士进修杂志, 2018, 33(10): 915-917.
14	焦雪萍, 刘瑞云, 李文娟, 等. 以家庭为中心的探视对ICU肿瘤重症患者谵妄的影响 [J]. 护理学杂志, 2021, 36(6): 1-4.
15	Smithburger PL, Korenoski AS, Alexander SA, et a1. Perceptions of families of intensive care unit patients regarding involvement in deljrium-prevention activities: a qualtative study [J]. Crit Care Nurse, 2017, 37(6): e1-e9.
16	Milner KA, Marmo S, Goncalves S. Implementation and sustainment strategies for open visitation in the intensive care unit: a multicentre qualitative study [J]. Intensive Crit Care Nurs, 2021, 62: 10297.
17	陈华玲, 李茂君, 罗伊美, 等. 基于标准化沟通制度连续性居家远程探视模式在新型冠状病毒肺炎后疫情时代严重烧伤患者探视管理中的应用 [J]. 中华烧伤杂志, 2021, 37(11): 1070-1077.

组别	例数	病情保证	获取信息	被接纳	支持	舒适	总分
对照组	60	27.03±4.56	25.78±3.93	11.02±2.07	22.63±3.88	14.82±2.60	101.28±14.32
研究组	60	27.47±3.78	28.03±3.62	12.32±1.86	22.90±3.12	16.20±2.21	106.92±11.35
t值		0.567	3.260	3.614	0.415	3.141	2.388
P值		0.572	0.001	0.000	0.679	0.002	0.019

组别	例数	病情保证	获取信息	被接纳	支持	舒适	总分
对照组	60	27.03±4.56	25.78±3.93	11.02±2.07	22.63±3.88	14.82±2.60	101.28±14.32
研究组	60	27.47±3.78	28.03±3.62	12.32±1.86	22.90±3.12	16.20±2.21	106.92±11.35
t值		0.567	3.260	3.614	0.415	3.141	2.388
P值		0.572	0.001	0.000	0.679	0.002	0.019

组别	人数	工作效率与环境	护患关系	病情转归	护患心理状态	满足探视需求	未来发展前景	总分
对照组	109	3.89±0.87	3.56±1.04	3.64±1.04	3.56±0.98	3.39±1.31	3.89±1.01	3.69±0.91
研究组	113	3.70±0.96	3.84±0.87	3.89±0.77	3.84±0.83	4.20±0.82	4.30±0.71	3.97±0.75
t值		1.588	2.196	2.048	2.414	5.411	3.510	2.058
P值		0.114	0.029	0.042	0.017	0.000	0.001	0.041

组别	人数	工作效率与环境	护患关系	病情转归	护患心理状态	满足探视需求	未来发展前景	总分
对照组	109	3.89±0.87	3.56±1.04	3.64±1.04	3.56±0.98	3.39±1.31	3.89±1.01	3.69±0.91
研究组	113	3.70±0.96	3.84±0.87	3.89±0.77	3.84±0.83	4.20±0.82	4.30±0.71	3.97±0.75
t值		1.588	2.196	2.048	2.414	5.411	3.510	2.058
P值		0.114	0.029	0.042	0.017	0.000	0.001	0.041

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export