Emergency Nursing and Staff Experiences With Visitation Restrictions During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Regina Wilder Urban, Robert Bobby Winters
{"title":"Emergency Nursing and Staff Experiences With Visitation Restrictions During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.","authors":"Regina Wilder Urban, Robert Bobby Winters","doi":"10.1016/j.jen.2025.03.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>At the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, visitors were prohibited in the emergency department, leaving patients bereft of their companionship and advocacy. However, little was known about the conflicts and distress of emergency department staff related to this policy. This study aimed to qualitatively explore emergency nursing and staff experiences regarding the no-visitor policy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative descriptive approach explored short answers to 1 open-ended question. Emergency nurses and assistive personnel (patient care technicians and emergency medical technicians/paramedics) were recruited from 11 participating emergency departments, using convenience sampling and a web-based survey. We followed the 6-step process of reflexive thematic analysis to identify patterns in the data and develop themes that describe the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 180 respondents, 69 (38%) answered our qualitative question. Participants were typically female (78.3%), White (82.6%), and mostly registered nurses (79.7%), with an average age of 39 years and an average of 10 years' ED experience. Participants offered complex, heartfelt responses, resulting in 3 themes: (1) exposure and risk, (2) experiencing patient and family reactions; and (3) policy enforcement challenges.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Although many respondents concluded that the policy was protective against pandemic risk, some saw it as ineffective. They believed exceptions must be made for imminent death. Participants felt that patients/visitors understood, but did not always like, restrictions. Adherence to policy left respondents conflicted, leading to inconsistent enforcement. Visitation policies for patients with infectious diseases must consider patient/visitor needs, moral distress of ED staff, and pragmatic enforcement strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51082,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2025.03.010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: At the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, visitors were prohibited in the emergency department, leaving patients bereft of their companionship and advocacy. However, little was known about the conflicts and distress of emergency department staff related to this policy. This study aimed to qualitatively explore emergency nursing and staff experiences regarding the no-visitor policy.

Methods: A qualitative descriptive approach explored short answers to 1 open-ended question. Emergency nurses and assistive personnel (patient care technicians and emergency medical technicians/paramedics) were recruited from 11 participating emergency departments, using convenience sampling and a web-based survey. We followed the 6-step process of reflexive thematic analysis to identify patterns in the data and develop themes that describe the results.

Results: Of 180 respondents, 69 (38%) answered our qualitative question. Participants were typically female (78.3%), White (82.6%), and mostly registered nurses (79.7%), with an average age of 39 years and an average of 10 years' ED experience. Participants offered complex, heartfelt responses, resulting in 3 themes: (1) exposure and risk, (2) experiencing patient and family reactions; and (3) policy enforcement challenges.

Discussion: Although many respondents concluded that the policy was protective against pandemic risk, some saw it as ineffective. They believed exceptions must be made for imminent death. Participants felt that patients/visitors understood, but did not always like, restrictions. Adherence to policy left respondents conflicted, leading to inconsistent enforcement. Visitation policies for patients with infectious diseases must consider patient/visitor needs, moral distress of ED staff, and pragmatic enforcement strategies.

2019冠状病毒病大流行期间急诊护理和探视限制的工作人员经验:一项定性描述性研究
导语:2019冠状病毒病大流行开始时,急诊室禁止访客,使患者失去了陪伴和倡导。然而,人们对与这项政策有关的急诊科工作人员的冲突和痛苦知之甚少。本研究旨在定性探讨急诊护理和工作人员对禁止访客政策的经验。方法:采用定性描述方法对1个开放式问题进行简短回答。采用方便抽样和基于网络的调查,从11个参与调查的急诊科招募了急诊护士和辅助人员(病人护理技术人员和急诊医疗技术人员/辅助医务人员)。我们遵循反思性主题分析的6步过程,以识别数据中的模式并开发描述结果的主题。结果:180名受访者中,69人(38%)回答了我们的定性问题。参与者通常为女性(78.3%),白人(82.6%),大多数为注册护士(79.7%),平均年龄39岁,平均有10年的ED经验。参与者提供了复杂而真诚的回应,产生了3个主题:(1)暴露和风险;(2)体验患者和家属的反应;(3)政策执行方面的挑战。讨论:尽管许多答复者得出结论认为,该政策可以防范大流行风险,但一些答复者认为该政策无效。他们认为必须对即将死亡的人例外。参与者认为病人/来访者理解限制,但并不总是喜欢。对政策的坚持让受访者感到矛盾,导致执行不一致。传染病病人的探视政策必须考虑病人/来访者的需要、急诊科工作人员的道德困境和务实的执行策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
132
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Nursing, the official journal of the Emergency Nurses Association (ENA), is committed to the dissemination of high quality, peer-reviewed manuscripts relevant to all areas of emergency nursing practice across the lifespan. Journal content includes clinical topics, integrative or systematic literature reviews, research, and practice improvement initiatives that provide emergency nurses globally with implications for translation of new knowledge into practice. The Journal also includes focused sections such as case studies, pharmacology/toxicology, injury prevention, trauma, triage, quality and safety, pediatrics and geriatrics. The Journal aims to mirror the goal of ENA to promote: community, governance and leadership, knowledge, quality and safety, and advocacy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信