Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

The Impact of Hospital Visiting Hour Policies on Pediatric and Adult Patients and Families

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports: Volume 4 - Issue 10 - p 1–14
doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2006-755
Systematic Review Protocol
Free

Dec. 3, 2006

Back to Top | Article Outline

Review title

The Impact of Hospital Visiting Hour Policies on Pediatric and Adult Patients and Families

Back to Top | Article Outline

Centre conducting the review

Queen's Joanna Briggs Collaboration

School of Nursing, Queen's University

Canada

Back to Top | Article Outline

Primary reviewers

Name: Lisa Smith, RN, MSc and Margaret B. Harrison, RN, PhD

Telephone: (613) 533–6000 ext. 78668

Facsimile: (613) 533–6331

Email: qjbc1@post.queensu.ca

Back to Top | Article Outline

Review panel

Secondary reviewers

Name: Jennifer Medves, RN, PhD

Telephone: (613) 533–6000 ext.74740

Facsimile: (613) 533–6331

Email: medvesj@post.queensu.ca

Name: Joan Tranmer, RN, PhD

Telephone: (613) 533–6000 ext. 77670

Facsimile: (613) 533–6770

Email: tranmerj@kgh.kari.net

Other panel members

Name: Brett Waytuck, MLS

Telephone: (613) 533–6000 ext. 77694

Facsimile: (613) 533–6892

Email: brett.waytuck@queensu.ca

Back to Top | Article Outline

Contact for the review

Name: Lisa Smith, RN, MSc

Telephone: (613) 533–6000 ext. 78668

Facsimile: (613) 533–6331

Email: qjbc1@post.queensu.ca

Back to Top | Article Outline

Commencement date

December 3, 2006

Back to Top | Article Outline

Expected completion date

June 30, 2007

Back to Top | Article Outline

Review Question/Objectives

The overall objective is to examine the impact of hospital visiting hour policies on pediatric and adult patients and families.

The specific review questions to be addressed are:

  • What is the physiological, psychological, or emotional impact of hospital visiting hour policies on pediatric and adult patients.
  • What is the physiological, psychological, or emotional impact of hospital visiting hour policies on pediatric and adult visitors of either pediatric and/or adult patients.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Background

Policies around restricted or open visiting hours appear to be a controversial subject in health care practices internationally, with no apparent consensus (Knutsson, Otterberg, and Bergbom, 2004). These rules which govern practice are often based on the assumptions of hospital staff, and in one review the authors concluded that they may have little or no evidence to support them (Clarke & Harrison, 2001). Policy and practice related to visiting hours is of pressing concern in Canada, and in Ontario specifically, following the reaction to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak and subsequent changes in visiting policies in most health care settings. Locally our clinical partners have requested a synopsis of the current state of knowledge in order to ensure their policies are guided by best available evidence, however this area will be of interest more generally for many centres.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Historical Overview of Visiting Policies

Restrictive visiting policies are carry-overs from the early 1800s when the first hospitals were established as almshouses for nonpaying patients. Visitation was often limited in an attempt to establish order in the general wards. It was not until about 1910 that hospitals became places that middle- and upper-class people would enter, and these paying patients were often free to have visitors at almost any time in their private or semi-private rooms. In the 1960s when neonatal intensive care units were established, there was grave concern about communicable disease involving immature immune systems, and there was also an effort to protect patients and families from exhaustion or stress caused by too many visitors, so hospitals instituted restrictive visiting hours broadly for both paying and nonpaying patients in ICUs and the general ward (Berwick and Kotagal, 2004; Giganti, 1998; Heater, 1985).

Practices involving visits to adults and children are still considered and judged from different perspectives throughout the world, in part established depending on cultural differences and principles, the size of the hospital, the hospital's geographic location, the daily admittance of patients, the distance to the hospital for visitors, the hospital's access to and implementation of current technology and the hospital staff's ability and willingness to adopt new knowledge and routines. For example, in critical care settings practices were varied, as some units requested no children could visit, while others had a fixed age for visits (Quinio et al., 2002). In one multi-centre survey it was found that many ICU settings (70%) had no policies or guidelines regarding child visits, several restricted child visits (34%), with a few actively encouraging child visits (Knutsson et al, 2004). A survey by Browne, Sanchez, Langlois and Smith (2004) suggested that in the United States, despite an effort to promote family centered care in 29 Intensive Care nurseries between 1995–2001, 13 of 16 nurseries (81%) still limited the number of visitors at the bedside in 2001, and visiting hours were sometimes restricted during staff shift change from one to four hours. Other studies have suggested there are incongruencies between unrestricted hospital visiting policies, and the actual restrictions imposed on visitors (Plowright, 1996).

In Neonatal Intensive Care settings, unrestricted parental visitation varied from 11% in Spain to 100% in other areas such as Great Britain (Cuttini et al, 1999). Visiting involving parents in decisions ranged from 19% in Italy to 89% in Great Britain, and it appeared that these variations could not be explained by differences in unit characteristics such as level, size, and availability of resources (Cuttini et al, 1999). Another recent study revealed that unrestricted access to mothers was allowed in only 29% of NICUs in Italy, with the main reasons for these restrictions being structural and organizational limitations and interference with staff activities. No relationship was found between visiting time (hours/day) and variables such as the unit's size, mean number of newborns, patient crowding and nurses’ workload (De Vonderweid et al, 2005).

Many hospitals in North America maintain both restricted visiting hours and restrictions on children's visits (Knutsson et al, 2004). In addition, sudden emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused much concern and as a reaction, strict visitation policies where imposed in regions affected by SARS during an outbreak (Rogers, 2004).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Reviews on Visiting Policies

During an initial review of the literature, no reviews were found in either Cochrane or JBI databases, but we located four reviews examining different aspects of visiting policies; Andrade (1998), Johnstone (1994), McIvor (1998), Clarke & Harrison (2001). Three of these reviews explored the needs of children visiting family members who were receiving treatment in intensive care unit settings (Johnstone, 1994; McIvor 1998; Clarke and Harrison, 2001). The Andrade (1998) review focused on sibling visitation. Thus the populations examined were narrow in scope, and there were methodological limitations; i.e. search methods, or search strategies were not described. During the mid-late 1990’s there was a paucity of studies on the effects of visiting policies and not all studies focused on visiting hour “policies”, but looked at various needs of visitors.

In conclusion, no systematic reviews were found that focused on and examined the effects of visiting hour policies on patients and families in general with adult and pediatric populations. The late 1990’s and early 21st century have brought profound changes in this area due to world-wide infectious outbreaks; therefore, a current review of the research literature is required to provide a relevant synopsis.

The objective of our review is to examine the effect of hospital visiting hour policies on patients and families of all ages and in a variety of in-patient settings focusing on the quantitative evaluative research on this topic to date.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Inclusion criteria

Types of participants

This component of the review will consider studies that include both pediatric and adult hospital patients and/or their families. Participants can be patients or visitors in the following settings: general medical/surgical units, critical care (ICU, NICU), chronic care, pediatrics, maternity, labour and delivery.

Articles will be excluded if participants came from the following settings: post-operative care, post anaesthesia care unit, dementia wards, long term care settings, studies focused on presence only during emergency procedures or resuscitation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Types of interventions

Studies will be considered for inclusion in this review if they evaluate the effect of visiting policies. This includes interventions targeted at limiting or expanding patient visiting.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Types of outcome measures

For this review, outcome measures related to both patients and families as a result of visiting hour policies will be considered, including, but not limited to: patient and/or visitor satisfaction, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, mood, or patient physiological outcomes. These could also include health care provider beliefs and perceptions about effects on patients and/or families.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Types of studies

Since the search question is about the effects of visiting hour policies, the review will primarily consider any experimental or quasi-experimental studies.

In the absence of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), other research designs will be considered for inclusion, such as, but not limited to: non-randomised controlled trials and before-and-after studies where the focus is the evaluation of the effect of visiting hour policies.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Search strategy

The search will seek both published and unpublished studies. Using a defined search and retrieval method the following databases from 1995–2006 will be accessed: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, HealthSTAR, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, AMED, and ERIC. Relevant subject headings will be exploded where appropriate, and keywords truncated. Since each electronic database has its own indexing terms, individual search strategies will be developed for each search. For example, in CINAHL and Medline, “Visitors to patients”, “patient-family relations”, professional-family relations” will be useful keywords, as well as a search for terms in the title, abstract, subject heading such as “restrict$ or unrestrict$ or limit$ or unlimit$ or regulat$ or unregulat$ or reduc$”, “visit$ adj2 hours$”, “visit$ hour$”, “hour$ of visit$”, “hour$ visit$”. All references will be exported to RefWorks and then transferred to Endnote if necessary.

The search for published studies will include the following sources:

  • CINAHL
  • Medline
  • HealthSTAR
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
  • Embase (for the European literature)
  • AMED
  • ERIC
  • PsycINFO
  • Web of Science
  • Reference lists of identified studies and review papers
  • Direct communication with key organizations and key researchers in the area.

The search for unpublished studies will include the following sources:

Electronic searching is expected to result in the lists of articles with details of title, author, source, and sometimes abstract. All identified articles will be assessed on the basis of the abstract (or title if abstract not available) by two reviewers, and full reports will be retrieved for all studies that meet the inclusion criteria for the review. Where doubt exists, the full article will be retrieved.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Assessment of methodological quality

Papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using the standardized critical appraisal instruments for evidence of effectiveness, from the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information Package (SUMARI) (Appendices B and C). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion with a third reviewer.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data extraction

Data will be extracted independently by two reviewers, using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information package (SUMARI) (Appendix A).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data synthesis

Where possible quantitative research study results will be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using Review Manager software from the Cochrane collaboration (Review manager 4.2.8). All results will be double entered. Odds ratio (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the standard Chi-square. Where statistical pooling is not possible the findings will be presented in narrative form.

Should the JBI MAStARI software be developed and ready for use at the commencement of the review, it will be used.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care for the provision of funding for the Queen's Joanna Briggs Collaboration demonstration project.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

None

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

Andrade T.M. (1998). Sibling Visitation: Research Implications for Pediatric and Neonatal Patients. The Online Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing; 5(6).
Bergbom I. Askwall A (2000). The nearest and dearest: a lifeline for ICU patients. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing. 16(6): 384-95.
    Berwick, D.M.; Kotagal, M (2004). Restricted Visiting Hours in ICUs. JAMA. 292(6): 736-737.
      Blanchard H (1995). Clinical management. Is restricted visiting in conflict with patients’ needs? British Journal of Nursing. 4(19):1160-3.
        Browne JV, Sanchez E, Langlois A, Smith S. (2004). From visitation policies and family participation guidelines in the NICU. Neonatal Pediatric and Child Health Nursing. 7(2): 16-23.
        Chow SM (1999). Challenging restricted visiting policies in critical care. CACCN. 10(2): 24-7.
          Clarke C, Harrison D (2001). The needs of children visiting on adult ICUs: a review of the literature and recommendations for practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 34(1): 61-8.
          Clarke CM (2000). Children visiting family and friends on adult intensive care units the nurses’ perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 31(2): 330-8.
            Fairburn K. Nurses’ attitudes to visiting in coronary care units (1994). Intensive & Critical Care Nursing. 10(3) 224-33.
              Fumagalli S, Boncinelli L, Lo Nostro A, Valoti P, Baldereschi G, Di Bari M, Ungar A, Baldasseroni S, Geppetti P, Masotti G, Pini R, Marchionni N (2006). Reduced cardiocirculatory complications with unrestrictive visiting policy in an ICU: results from a pilot, randomized trial. Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association. 113: 946-952.
                Gonzalez CE, Carroll DL, Elliott JS, Fitzgerald PA, Vallent HJ (2004). Visiting preferences of patients in the intensive care unit and in a complex care medical unit. American Journal of Critical Care. 13(3) 4-8.
                  Heater, B.S. (1985). Nursing responsibilities in changing visiting restrictions in the intensive care unit. Heart & Lung. 14: 181-186.
                  Johnstone M (1994). Children visiting members of their family receiving treatment in ICUs: a literature review. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing. 10: 289-292.
                  Knutsson, SEM, Otterberg, CL, Bergbom, IL. (2004). Visits of children to patients being cared for in adult ICUs: policies, guidelines and recommendations. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing. 20: 264-274.
                  McIvor, D (1998). Should children be restricted from visiting a relative in intensive care? Nursing in Critical Care. 3(1): 35-40.
                  Plowright CI (1998). Intensive therapy unit nurses’ beliefs about and attitudes towards visiting in three district general hospitals. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing. 14(6) 262-70.
                    Quinio P, Savry C, Deghelt A, Guilloux M, Catineau J, Tinteniac, A (2002). A multicenter survey of visiting policies in French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 28: 1389-1394.
                    Quinlan B, Loughrey S, Nicklin W, Roth VR (2003). Restrictive visitor policies: feedback from healthcare workers, patients and families. Hospital Quarterly. 7(1): 33-7
                      Rogers S (2004). Why can't I visit? The ethics of visitation restrictions - lessons learned from SARS. Critical Care. 8(5): 300-302.
                      Rozdilsky, J. Enhancing Sibling Presence in Pediatric ICU (2005). Critical Care Nursing clinics of North America. 451-461.
                        Simon SK, Phillips K, Badalamenti S, Krumberger J (1997). Current practices regarding visitation policies in critical care units. American Journal of Critical Care. 6(3):210-7
                          Widick Giganti, A (1998). Families in Pediatric Critical Care: The Best Option. Pediatric Nursing. 24(3): 261-264.
                            Back to Top | Article Outline

                            Appendix A:

                            Figure

                            Figure

                            Figure

                            Figure

                            Back to Top | Article Outline

                            APPENDIX B:

                            Figure

                            Figure

                            Back to Top | Article Outline

                            APPENDIX C

                            Figure

                            Figure

                            © 2006 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.