Skip to main content

Open Access 01.12.2017 | Letter

Effect of extended visiting hours on physician distractions in the ICU: a before-and-after study

verfasst von: Kay Choong See, Xie Ying Song, Han Tun Aung

Erschienen in: Critical Care | Ausgabe 1/2017

Abkürzungen
ICU
Intensive care unit

Main text

Extending visiting hours in adult intensive care units (ICUs) promotes family-centered care, but physicians may be concerned about increased distractions from visitors [1]. We sought empirical evidence within our 20-bed medical ICU, assuming that distractions could cause medical errors [2].
During office hours (07.30 to 17.30 on weekdays; 07.30–12.30 on weekends), two physician teams shared the patient load. Each team comprised one attending physician, one senior resident, and two junior residents. Observations of residents, being front-line medical staff, were performed during two time periods, before and after implementation of extended visiting hours in 2015. For each time period, observations were performed by different groups of six nurse researchers, following a standard method [3]. For each observation session lasting 150–180 min, a pair of observers (A and B) independently recorded the duration, type, source, and severity of distractions. Distractions were defined as breaks in attention, evidenced by observed behaviour such as orienting away from a task or responding verbally [4]. Analysis was based on the data of observer A only, while reliability was assessed using the data from observer B. All physicians gave informed consent to be observed, and no one declined participation. Ethics approval was obtained (DSRB/2011/00279).
From 11 May to 26 June 2011 (previously reported [3]), visiting hours were restricted to 12.00–14.00 and 17.00 to 20.00 (total 5 h), and from 8 May to 9 July 2017, visiting hours were extended to 09.00–21.00 (total 12 h). Mean distraction frequency did not differ between both time periods (4.36 ± 2.27/h versus 5.00 ± 2.68/h, t test P = 0.262), even after adjusting for resident seniority using multiple linear regression (P = 0.303). The distribution of current activities and distraction characteristics differed, though predominant type, sources, and severity of distractions were similar (Table 1). The duration of distractions was short, and median duration per distraction was shorter in the later time period (2 min versus 1 min, P < 0.005). Reliability, as assessed by agreement of all observed distractions between observers A and B, was excellent in both time periods (99.1% and 96.1%, respectively).
Table 1
Characteristics of distractions
Variables studied
Restricted visiting hours
Extended visiting hours
P value
Sessions observed
38
39
NA
Total observation time, h
100.4
117
NA
Number of distractions
444
585
NA
Start time of sessions observed
 Morning (07.30–12.00), n (%)
23 (60.5)
21 (53.8)
0.554
 Afternoon (12.00–17.30), n (%)
15 (39.5)
18 (46.2)
Frequency of distractions/h, mean ± SD
4.36 ± 2.27
5.00 ± 2.68
0.262
Distraction duration (min), median (IQR)
2 (2–4)
1 (1–2)
< 0.001
Current activity at the time of distraction, n (%)
< 0.001
 Writing notes
97 (21.8)
150 (25.6)
 
 Conducting ward round
84 (18.9)
35 (6.0)
 Entering treatment orders
75 (16.9)
148 (25.3)
 Reading notes
61 (13.7)
162 (27.7)
 Talking to a colleague
47 (10.6)
49 (8.4)
 Examining a patient
37 (8.3)
11 (1.9)
 Entering medication orders
14 (3.2)
3 (0.5)
 Performing non-sterile procedure
11 (2.5)
7 (1.2)
 Performing sterile procedure
9 (2.0)
9 (1.5)
 Talking to a patient
3 (0.7)
4 (0.7)
 Talking to a patient’s relative
3 (0.7)
6 (1.0)
 Performing resuscitation
2 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
 Giving medications
1 (0.2)
1 (0.2)
Type of distraction, n (%)
<0.001
 Asked to speak to colleague
177 (39.9)
367 (62.7)
 
 Asked to write treatment orders
61 (13.7)
43 (7.4)
 Asked to attend to a patient
61 (13.7)
25 (4.3)
 Asked to sign a document
31 (7.0)
5 (0.9)
 Going to the toilet/going elsewhere
30 (6.8)
89 (15.2)
 Asked to perform a procedure
29 (6.5)
7 (1.2)
 Asked to speak to a patient’s relative
25 (5.6)
18 (3.1)
 Drinking/eating
21 (4.7)
14 (2.4)
 Asked to write medication orders
7 (1.6)
13 (2.2)
 Asked to administer medications
2 (0.5)
4 (0.7)
Source of distraction, n (%)
0.026
 Other doctor
156 (35.1)
207 (35.4)
 
 Nurse
135 (30.4)
147 (25.1)
 Self
83 (18.7)
164 (28.0)
 Phone call
30 (6.8)
28 (4.8)
 Other healthcare worker
24 (5.4)
21 (3.6)
 Relative
14 (3.2)
15 (2.6)
 Patient
1 (0.2)
2 (0.3)
 Monitor alarm
1 (0.2)
1 (0.2)
Severity of distraction, n (%)
<0.001
 No effect on activity
13 (2.9)
82 (14.0)
 
 Momentary pausea
136 (30.6)
193 (33.0)
 Complete pauseb
210 (47.3)
288 (49.2)
 Abandons activity, attends to distraction
85 (19.1)
22 (3.8)
aActivity resumes during distraction
bActivity resumes only after distraction ceases
IQR interquartile range, NA not applicable, SD standard deviation
Overall, distractions among ICU doctors were common (~4–5 distractions/doctor/h), and this is consistent with data from other studies using different observation methods [5]. There was also no significant increase in the frequency of distractions after implementation of extended visiting hours in the ICU. Being asked to speak to family members constituted a small proportion (<5%) of the distractions, and therefore our study did not provide empirical support for the concern of increased distractions from visitors due to extended visiting hours.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the research nurses from Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore, for assisting with the data collection.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics approval was obtained from the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board (ethics approval number DSRB/2011/00279). All participating physicians gave informed consent to be observed.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Soury-Lavergne A, Hauchard I, Dray S, Baillot ML, Bertholet E, Clabault K, Jeune S, Ledroit C, Lelias I, Lombardo V, et al. Survey of caregiver opinions on the practicalities of family-centred care in intensive care units. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(7–8):1060–7.CrossRefPubMed Soury-Lavergne A, Hauchard I, Dray S, Baillot ML, Bertholet E, Clabault K, Jeune S, Ledroit C, Lelias I, Lombardo V, et al. Survey of caregiver opinions on the practicalities of family-centred care in intensive care units. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21(7–8):1060–7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, Dunsmuir WT, Day RO. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):683–90.CrossRefPubMed Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, Dunsmuir WT, Day RO. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):683–90.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat See KC, Phua J, Mukhopadhyay A, Lim TK. Characteristics of distractions in the intensive care unit: how serious are they and who are at risk? Singapore Med J. 2014;55(7):358–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral See KC, Phua J, Mukhopadhyay A, Lim TK. Characteristics of distractions in the intensive care unit: how serious are they and who are at risk? Singapore Med J. 2014;55(7):358–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Anthony K, Wiencek C, Bauer C, Daly B, Anthony MK. No interruptions please: impact of a No Interruption Zone on medication safety in intensive care units. Crit Care Nurse. 2010;30(3):21–9.CrossRefPubMed Anthony K, Wiencek C, Bauer C, Daly B, Anthony MK. No interruptions please: impact of a No Interruption Zone on medication safety in intensive care units. Crit Care Nurse. 2010;30(3):21–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Ballermann MA, Shaw NT, Mayes DC, Gibney RN, Westbrook JI. Validation of the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing (WOMBAT) method of conducting time-motion observations in critical care settings: an observational study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ballermann MA, Shaw NT, Mayes DC, Gibney RN, Westbrook JI. Validation of the Work Observation Method By Activity Timing (WOMBAT) method of conducting time-motion observations in critical care settings: an observational study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadaten
Titel
Effect of extended visiting hours on physician distractions in the ICU: a before-and-after study
verfasst von
Kay Choong See
Xie Ying Song
Han Tun Aung
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2017
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Critical Care / Ausgabe 1/2017
Elektronische ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1830-y

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.