↓ Skip to main content

Exploring staff perspectives on caring for isolated hospitalised patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring staff perspectives on caring for isolated hospitalised patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12913-022-09000-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin Digby, Ingrid Hopper, Leanne Hughes, Doug McCaskie, Michelle Tuck, Kethly Fallon, Peter Hunter, Tracey Bucknall

Abstract

Strict isolation of COVID-19 patients to prevent cross infection may inadvertently cause serious adverse outcomes including psychological harm, limitations to care, increased incidence of delirium, deconditioning and reduced quality of life. Previous research exploring the staff perspective of the effect of isolation on patients is limited. The aim of this study is to understand staff perceptions and interpretations of their experiences of the care and treatment of isolated patients and the impact of isolation on patients, families, and staff. This qualitative, exploratory study is set in a major metropolitan, quaternary hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Data was collected in focus groups with clinical and non-clinical staff and analysed using content analysis. The hospital ethics committee granted approval. Each participant gave informed verbal consent. Participants included 58 nursing, medical, allied health, and non-clinical staff. Six main themes were identified: 1) Communication challenges during COVID-19; 2) Impact of isolation on family; 3) Challenges to patients' health and safety; 4) Impact on staff; 5) Challenging standards of care; 6) Contextual influences: policy, decision-makers and the environment. Isolating patients and restricting visitors resulted in good pandemic management, but staff perceived it came at considerable cost to staff and consumers. Innovative communication technology may facilitate improved connection between all parties. Mental health support is needed for patients, families, and staff. Further research using a co-design model with input from patients, families and staff is recommended to determine appropriate interventions to improve care. Preventing the spread of infection is essential for good pandemic management, but the cost to consumers and staff must be mitigated. Preparation for future pandemics must consider workforce preparedness, adapted models of care and workflow.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Unspecified 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Librarian 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 9 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 19%
Arts and Humanities 2 10%
Unspecified 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2023.
All research outputs
#14,669,164
of 23,477,147 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,245
of 7,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,003
of 338,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#78
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,477,147 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.