Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Restrictive visitation policies produce inequities in healthcare that have meaningful consequences for patients’ health and well-being. There is a surplus of existing literature exploring the consequences of reduced visitation in the setting of pediatric patients lacking decision-making capacity, but relatively little scholarship addressing visitation restriction for less vulnerable adults possessing capacity. Here, we present the case of a patient who suffered serious complications of childbirth, during the delivery of her healthy newborn, leading to prolonged hospitalization. During her treatment course, she was subsequently denied visitation with her newborn, who had been discharged from the hospital, and this had detrimental effects on her recovery. Hospital policies restricting visitation during the COVID-19 pandemic were intended to reduce the risk of disease exposure for both patients and staff, despite conflicting evidence demonstrating this benefit. In contrast, they often have negative effects on patient stress, mood, and physical recovery. The sequelae of this US-based case study argue the need for more holistic hospital visitation policies, placing a specific lens on adult patients receiving a visitation from their newborn children.

Keywords

Women care for specific groups clinical ethics health care quality health care

Introduction

The lack of uniformity in visitation policy and the resultant inequity in healthcare has been previously described.¹ Reduced visitation can impact the psychosocial, decisional, and logistical aspects of patient care. Existing literature demonstrates the consequences reduced visitation has on dependent pediatrics patients in addition to others lacking legal decision-making capacity (DMC).^2,3 Existing visitation policies regarding vulnerable populations, strongly emphasize logistical considerations, such as assistance with bedside care and informed consent, when granting exemptions because these factors have a beneficial impact that outweighs the underlying intent of reduced visitation (i.e. to limit the spread of disease).^2,3

Less attention has been paid, among providers, to the effects restricted visitation has on hospitalized parents possessing DMC receiving visits from their minor children. The case described below involves a patient who suffered severe complications related to childbirth, requiring prolonged hospitalization in the United States, and who was subsequently denied visitation with her newborn. This case further supports the need for more holistic, compassionate, and conscientious hospital visitation policies among adult patients receiving visits from their newborn children by expanding upon previous ethical analyses. It provides an example illustrating that restricted visitation can have detrimental effects on the well-being and treatment of adult patients (with DMC) which outweigh the benefits of restricted visitation to patients and staff. It then draws parallels for this population to the logistical considerations underlying previously existing exemptions to visitation restriction regarding the contrast of beneficence and nonmaleficence.

Case

Jennifer was a 39-year-old cisgender woman who experienced life-threatening complications following the birth of her healthy fourth child ultimately resulting in cardiovascular arrest in the Fall of 2021. Following successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), Jennifer was transferred to the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) for higher level of care. After a massive transfusion, she stabilized and was brought to the operating room for definitive surgical treatment of internal injuries related to childbirth and subsequent CPR.

Jennifer's recovery required a prolonged stay on an ICU floor given that she was intubated for a period of days, had various physiological parameters mandating this (i.e. tachycardia) and numerous complications related to her recent childbirth, and subsequent surgeries. While intubated, Jennifer was put in restraints to prevent her from pulling drains and tubing out, but at the time was unsure of the reason for the restraints. Further, given the gravity of events during her childbirth, the heavy sedation she was under, and the appearance of her abdomen after several surgeries, initially she was unsure of her newborn's health and status or if she had even delivered yet at all.

Jennifer had never seen her baby in person, and given the traumatic nature of the delivery, she did not even remember giving birth. This confusion and uncertainty regarding her newborn and the restraints she was placed in, were understandably distressing and a great source of anxiety to Jennifer. Once able to communicate, following extubation, Jennifer expressed concern regarding her healthy newborn, who she learned had actually been discharged with family, and frustration that she was not permitted visitation with her newborn, due to hospital policy, an altered version of which (modified to ensure anonymity and protect patient privacy) is displayed in Figure 1. The hospital policy at the time, depicted in Figure 1, had restricted visitation due to COVID-19 and mandated that patients 18 years and older on an ICU floor be limited to one designated visitor, who also had to be at least 18 years of age. This restriction was based on local institutional interpretation of state department of health (DOH) guidelines which set age requirements for visitation and available Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations to “allow only visitors essential to providing patient care” such as individuals to “help provide patient care and/or care for pediatric patients.”^4–6 The length of Jennifer's hospitalization, therefore, resulted in prolonged separation from her newborn during a period that is typically regarded as critical for bonding. This can in turn lead to increased levels of maternal stress and anxiety as well as numerous health detriments to baby.^7–11 This had a detrimental effect on Jennifer's mood, which hindered her participation in occupational, physical, and speech therapy, and in her medical team's opinion significantly delayed her physical recovery. Consequently, her medical team began to feel that they were providing inadequate treatment and caring for their patient with insufficient compassion.

Figure 1.

Example of restricted visitation policy. This figure was modeled after restricted hospital visitation policies available online and modified for deidentification.

Jennifer requested to visit with her newborn multiple times over several consecutive days. Both the nursing staff, and her team of physicians spoke with hospital administration to express Jennifer's circumstances and her desire to be with her newborn and request she be granted visitation, but this request was denied given the newborn's age, and existing hospital policy (Figure 1). As such Jennifer was repeatedly told this was prohibited by the hospital's policy and when senior members of her treatment team finally informed her that this was an absolute prohibition, she was overwhelmed with anguish and despair. The contrast between Jennifer's affect and appearance preceding and following receipt of this information was immediately evident. Soon after, she experienced a decline in her physical health, with a reversal of previous clinical improvements. Given this, her team pursued various avenues to allow for an exception to permit visitation.

After lengthy and repeated conversions with multiple hospital departments and administrators, on the part of attending physicians, nursing, and case management, Jennifer was eventually granted visitation with her newborn. Over the following days, her mood greatly improved, along with her appetite and her ability to participate in physical and occupational therapy, which accelerated her recovery and eventual discharge. This case was based on true events. The patient's name and demographic information were fictionalized and the specific complications of birth as well as conditions complicating recovery were masked to protect the identity of the patient.

Discussion

The risks and benefits of restricted and liberal visitation policies

Hospital policy associated with COVID-19 was preventing Jennifer from fulfilling her need, as a parent, to be with and care for her newborn, though it was consistent with WHO, CDC, and NYS DOH guidance, available at that time, regarding visitation restriction related to age and assistance with care.^4–6,12 The policy was implemented with the intent to keep Jennifer, her newborn, staff, and other patients safe. Jennifer was suffering from a number of problems that could have put her at increased risk of complications from COVID-19 infection, such as her recent surgeries.¹³ Guided by the principle of nonmaleficence, it is the health professional's responsibility to mitigate risks, such as disease transmission.¹⁴ Visitation restriction is a well-established practice for decreasing transmission of traditional viruses such as influenza or respiratory syncytial virus.^3,15–21

Hospital policies should both remove harm and add intervention to promote patient welfare.¹⁴ Jennifer was on an ICU floor with other critically ill patients more susceptible to complication from infection and severe COVID-19 and the circumstances of her newborn visitation would have been different had she been on peripartum unit. As mentioned, restricted visitation has efficacy with other viral diseases, in reduced disease transmission;^3,15–21 however, the policy preventing Jennifer from visiting with her newborn was specifically related to COVID-19 and not these other infections. Several studies and reviews, prior to this case, had demonstrated conflicting and unclear evidence at best for the efficacy and benefits of visitation restriction in the context of COVID-19^{15,16,18,20,22} and further systematic reviews expanding upon this lack of clarity have been published since then.³ Furthermore, household members may carry a similar risk of exposure and increased co-infectivity.^15,23 Consequently, restricting visitation to a single family member (Jennifer's family member), while not allowing others from the same household (Jennifer's newborn) is unlikely to reduce harm in the context of COVID-19. On top of all this, Jennifer was negative for COVID-19 throughout her stay, and there was and continues to be scant evidence for limiting parental visitation with newborns among those who are asymptomatic or negative.^3,24

In contrast to reducing harm, available literature has demonstrated that reduced visitation can lead to increased stated pain and stress, decreased medical staff responsiveness, and increased fall and sepsis rates.^16,22,25 The consequences of restricted visitation are especially evident when considering the lack of skin-to-skin contact (SSC) contact allotted to peripartum mothers such as Jennifer. SSC leads to higher per day newborn weight gain, and cardiorespiratory stability, lowered maternal stress and anxiety, and increased breastfeeding success.^7–11 Mood, anxiety, and stress in turn correlate with recovery time.^26–28 These benefits are well recognized within the scientific community and supported by laws such as the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health Protection Act.²⁹ Specifically under the lens of COVID-19, evidence has since come out that parental separation from newborns is associated with increased postnatal depression, suicidal ideation, and decreased breastfeeding success.³⁰ Breastfeeding in turn leads to decreased postpartum blood loss and reduction in all-cause newborn mortality.³¹

Restricted visitation policies with indeterminate evidence for benefit^3,15–19,22 and clear evidence of harm violate the principles of nonmaleficence and respect for autonomy. This is particularly troubling in the context of newborns visiting their parents as exemplified by Jennifer and her newborn given the clear benefits to visitation on patient recovery time, and satisfaction with hospital experience.^32–34 Furthermore, Hospital policy in the context of COVID-19 should be continually revisited and revised as new evidence continues to be published. In Jennifer's case, instead of fostering an environment conducive to healing, the visitation policy actively harmed her, physically and mentally.

Patient autonomy and visitation policy

Despite the fact that the purported benefits of hospital visitation policies are universal, existing literature demonstrates certain subsets of vulnerable patients (such as children) are more likely to be granted exemptions.^3,32,35 The risk to the rest of the hospital, however, is similar whether a parent is visiting a child or that same child is visiting the parent in the hospital. Evidence regarding the increased spread of infection from children visitors to the hospital is conflicting^36–39 and in fact, as the pandemic continues, available evidence has demonstrated children are less frequently the source of transmission in the spread of COVID-19.^40,41 Furthermore, the risk of COVID-19 is similar among household members,^15,23 so allowing Jennifer's newborn to visit, accompanied by the already visiting caretaker, would likely not increase the infant's risk of infection. There is contradictory evidence and unclear benefit to the rest of the hospital population regarding decreased spread of COVID-19 by preventing child visitors, or by preventing children from accompanying other visitors from the same household. In contrast, there are clear benefits, detailed in the preceding paragraphs for allowing newborn children to visit with their parents such as lowered maternal stress and anxiety, and decreased recovery time. Unlike young children, there were no questions regarding Jennifer's DMC and there were clear benefits to Jennifer from visitation which outweighed the unclear and likely minimal risks to the rest of the hospital population from her newborn visiting. Thus, the denial of the right to assess the risks and benefits of visitation for herself and her child was a clear infringement on her autonomy, with no clear benefit to the rest of the hospital.

Visitation policy and exemption

Hospital policy should be guided by the cost-effective management of limited clinical resources to maximize benefits and minimize harm⁴² and be applied in a just and equitable manner across all patients.³⁵ A universal approach to visitation policy fails to incorporate the unique needs of individual patients, families, and clinicians in the widely varying clinical settings of the hospital.³ The lack of directive from state guidance recommending a minimum age for visitation “except in rare exceptions as determined by the hospital”⁴ and the ambiguity in CDC guidance limiting visitation to “only those essential for the patient's physical or emotional well-being and care”⁶ has the potential to exacerbate inequity. This is further complicated by the lack of consistency among various health care providers when implementing and dissenting from said hospital policies and procedures.^43–46 In Jenifer's specific case, the lack of clarity from this guidance in regard to “emotional well-being” and no provision for examples of “rare exceptions” that hospitals could base their decisions on result in policies that limit emotional support to only those over 18 (Figure 1) and prevented Jennifer from receiving needed time with her newborn. If a patient's health allows, hospital visitation policy should not separate or deny visitation between parents and their newborns.

The real question regarding an exemption to policy is: does the benefit of an exemption for patients outweigh the potential risks to other patients and staff? Restricted visitation is not novel, however, the data prior to this case and thus far in the pandemic has failed to sufficiently demonstrate its efficacy in reducing the spread of COVID-19.^3,15–19,22 Yet available literature demonstrates that age restrictions for COVID-19 visitation policies are not unique to Jennifer's case, are prevalent in many other institutions,⁴⁷ and have similar effects on patient health and emotional status.⁴⁸ Therefore, these policies in the context of COVID-19 are not based on evidence and should continually be reviewed and revised. Research has not shown a significant risk of vertical transmission between asymptomatic mothers with their newborns.^3,24 In fact, the passage of antibodies to COVID-19 through breastmilk may be beneficial to infants.^49–52 As noted above, Jennifer's sole permitted visitor was a caretaker of the newborn; infection brought to the hospital by the infant was likely to be shared by the caretaker.^15,23,38 Limiting visitation to just one family member, in certain scenarios, has the potential to negatively impact patient well-being without demonstrating a clear reduction in disease transmission.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing for over two years now and is likely to be a continued facet of healthcare provision. At the beginning of the pandemic, when these restricted visitation policies were implemented, there was little the citizen could do to mitigate risk besides social distance; however, the advent of safe and efficacious, and widely available vaccines, has provided individuals with other avenues to reduce their risk of severe infection.⁵³ Despite the evolution of the pandemic and our response to it, many institutions have maintained their restricted visitation policies, even in the absence of supporting evidence and in the face of existing evidence such as that children may transmit COVID-19 to a lesser degree. In cases like Jennifer's, adherence to hospital policy actively harms patients and families and violates their autonomy. Hospitals should consider modifying existing visitation policies to permit peripartum patients to visit with their newborns. Such approaches to visitation facilitate patients’ recovery, while also benefitting children's socioemotional development and well-being.

Current policies also lack point of contacts for exception and processes for evaluating policy impact and performing revision in the face of new evidence.¹ Often times, this leads to confusion regarding how to go about getting an exception to policy, both for patient and providers, increased wait times for a decision, and rejections of policy exemption even when the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. After much resistance from hospital oversight, the care team was able to unite Jennifer with her newborn and her status, mood, and participation in recovery incomparably improved. It is past time for hospitals to take steps to prevent similar cases from occurring within the context of COVID-19 and among any new disease outbreaks which inevitably will occur in the future.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Dylan Z. Taylor

References

Weiner

Schwartz

Sharma

, et al. Patient-centered decision making and health care outcomes: an observational study. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 573.

Raphael

Kessel

Patel

. Unintended consequences of restrictive visitation policies during the COVID-19 pandemic: implications for hospitalized children. Pediatr Res 2021; 89: 1333–1335.

Iness

Abaricia

Sawadogo

, et al. The effect of hospital visitor policies on patients, their visitors, and health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Am J Med 2022; 135: 1158–1167.

New York State Department of Health. Interim Health Advisory: Updated COVID-19 Updated Guidance for Hospital Visitation and Non-Hospital Employed Patient Support. https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/06/hospital_visitation_guidance_06072021.pdf (2021, accessed 5 June 2022).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Management of Visitors to Healthcare Facilities in the Context of COVID-19: Non-US Healthcare Settings, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/non-us-settings/hcf-visitors.html#:∼:text=Limit%20to%20one%20visitor%2Fcaregiver,determine%20risks%20to%20their%20health. (2020, access 5 June 2022).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Facemasks, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/face-masks.html (23 November 2020, accessed 13 November 2022).

Widström

Brimdyr

Svensson

, et al. Skin-to-skin contact the first hour after birth, underlying implications and clinical practice. Acta Paediatr 2019; 108: 1192–1204.

Crenshaw

. Care practice #6: no separation of mother and baby, with unlimited opportunities for breastfeeding. J Perinat Educ 2007; 16: 39–43.

Bramson

Lee

Moore

, et al. Effect of early skin-to-skin mother—infant contact during the first 3 hours following birth on exclusive breastfeeding during the maternity hospital stay. J Hum Lact 2010; 26: 130–137.

10.

Bergman

Linley

Fawcus

. Randomized controlled trial of skin-to-skin contact from birth versus conventional incubator for physiological stabilization in 1200- to 2199-gram newborns. Acta Paediatr 2004; 93: 779–785.

11.

Moore

Bergman

Anderson

, et al. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11: CD003519.

12.

World Health Organization. Maintaining essential health services: operational guidance for the COVID-19 context: interim guidance, 1 June 2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332240 (2020, accessed 5 June 2022).

13.

Hogan

Peter

Shenoy

, et al. Surgery induced immunosuppression. Surgeon 2011; 9: 38–43.

14.

Varkey

. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Med Princ Pract 2021; 30: 17–18.

15.

Jefferson

Del Mar

Dooley

, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 11: CD006207.

16.

Hugelius

Harada

Marutani

. Consequences of visiting restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud 2021; 121: 104000.

17.

Smith

Medves

Harrison

, et al. The impact of hospital visiting hour policies on pediatric and adult patients and their visitors. JBI Library of Systematic Reviews 2009; 7: 38–79.

18.

Munshi

Evans

Razak

. The case for relaxing no-visitor policies in hospitals during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. CMAJ 2021; 193: E135–E137.

19.

Nassar Junior

Besen

BAMP

Robinson

, et al. Flexible versus restrictive visiting policies in icus: a systematic review and meta-analysis*. Crit Care Med 2018; 46: 1175–1180.

20.

Forkpa

Rupp

Shulman

, et al. Association between children’s hospital visitor restrictions and healthcare-associated viral respiratory infections: a quasi-experimental study. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 2020; 9: 240–243.

21.

Washam

Woltmann

Ankrum

, et al. Association of visitation policy and health care-acquired respiratory viral infections in hospitalized children. Am J Infect Control 2018; 46: 353–355.

22.

Zeh

Santry

Monsour

, et al. Impact of visitor restriction rules on the postoperative experience of COVID-19 negative patients undergoing surgery. Surgery 2020; 168: 770–776.

23.

Grijalva

Rolfes

Zhu

, et al. Transmission of SARS-COV-2 infections in households—Tennessee and Wisconsin, April–September 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020; 69: 1631–1634.

24.

Murray

Swanson

. Visitation restrictions: is it right and how do we support families in the NICU during COVID-19? J Perinatol 2020; 40: 1576–1581.

25.

Silvera

Wolf

Stanowski

, et al. The influence of COVID-19 visitation restrictions on patient experience and safety outcomes: a critical role for subjective advocates. Pat Exp J 2021; 8: 30–39.

26.

McCauley

Wilde

Miller

, et al. Preinjury resilience and mood as predictors of early outcome following mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2013; 30: 642–652.

27.

Mavros

Athanasiou

Gkegkes

, et al.

Do psychological variables affect early surgical recovery?

PLoS One 2011; 6: e20306.

28.

Prina

Cosco

Dening

, et al. The association between depressive symptoms in the community, non-psychiatric hospital admission and hospital outcomes: a systematic review. J Psychosom Res 2015; 78: 25–33.

29.

104-326 - NEWBORNS’ AND MOTHERS’ HEALTH PROTECTION ACT OF 1996. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/104th-congress/senate-report/326/1 (1996, accessed 10 February 2022).

30.

Shuman

Peahl

Pareddy

, et al. Postpartum depression and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Res Notes 2022; 15: 102.

31.

Eidelman

Schanler

Johnston

, et al. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics 2012; 129: e827–e841.

32.

Virani

Puls

Mitsos

, et al. Benefits and risks of visitor restrictions for hospitalized children during the COVID pandemic. Pediatrics 2020; 146: e2020000786.

33.

Khaleghparast

Joolaee

Ghanbari

, et al. A review of visiting policies in intensive care units. Glob J Health Sci 2015; 8: 267–276.

34.

Sims

Miracle

. A look at critical care visitation: the case for flexible visitation. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2006; 25: 175–180.

35.

Lanphier

Mosley

Antommaria

AHM

. Assessing visitor policy exemption requests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatrics 2021; 148: e2021051254.

36.

Lary

Calvert

Nerlich

, et al. Improving children’s and their visitors’ hand hygiene compliance. J Infect Prev 2020; 21: 60–67.

37.

Lawson

Cameron

Vaganay-Miller

. An evaluation of the hand hygiene behaviour and compliance of the general public when using public restrooms in Northern Ireland (NI) during the initial weeks of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 6385.

38.

Horikoshi

Okazaki

Miyokawa

, et al. Sibling visits and viral infection in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Int 2018; 60: 153–156.

39.

Andrade

. Sibling visitation: research implications for pediatric and neonatal patients. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nursing 1998; E5: 58–64.

40.

Lee

Raszka

. COVID-19 transmission and children: the child is not to blame. Pediatrics 2020; 146: e2020004879.

41.

Viner

Mytton

Bonell

, et al. Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection among children and adolescents compared with adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2021; 175: 143.

42.

Zapata

Moriates

. The high-value care considerations of inpatient versus outpatient testing. AMA J Ethics 2015; 17: 1022–1027.

43.

Bates

Singh

. Two decades since to err is human: an assessment of progress and emerging priorities in patient safety. Health Aff 2018; 37: 1736–1743.

44.

Fiest

Krewulak

Jaworska

, et al. Impact of restricted visitation policies during COVID-19 on critically ill adults, their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers: a qualitative interview study. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 2022; 69: 1248–1259.

45.

Lim

J-H

Ahn

J-W

Son

Y-J

. Association between hospital nurses’ perception of patient safety management and standard precaution adherence: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 4744.

46.

Ribeiro

Fernandes

Souza

, et al. Safe surgery checklist: filling adherence, inconsistencies, and challenges. Rev Col Bras Cir 2019; 46: e20192311.

47.

Marmo

Milner

. From open to closed: COVID-19 restrictions on previously unrestricted visitation policies in adult intensive care units. Am J Crit Care 2023; 32: 31–41.

48.

Moss

Krewulak

Stelfox

, et al. Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Crit Care 2021; 25: 347.

49.

Dong

Chi

Hai

, et al. Antibodies in the breast milk of a maternal woman with COVID-19. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020; 9: 1467–1469.

50.

Perl

Uzan-Yulzari

Klainer

, et al. SARS-CoV-2–Specific antibodies in breast milk after COVID-19 vaccination of breastfeeding women. JAMA 2021; 325: 2013.

51.

Young

Seppo

Diaz

, et al. Association of human milk antibody induction, persistence, and neutralizing capacity with SARS-CoV-2 infection vs mRNA vaccination. JAMA Pediatr 2022; 176: 159.

52.

Peng

Zhu

Yang

, et al. A study of breastfeeding practices, SARS-CoV-2 and its antibodies in the breast milk of mothers confirmed with COVID-19. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2020; 4: 100045.

53.

Cai