Singapore General Hospital Logo
Home
Contact us
Site map
Global Search        
Home
About Us
Programmes
Services
Faculty
Virtual Classroom
News
Links
For SGH staff only
SGH Proceeding - Current Issue
SGH Proceeding
Current Issue
Past Issues
Editorial Committee
Guidelines for Contributors

Volume 14 Number 2 2005

A Descriptive Study on the Views of Patients and Nurses Concerning Visitation Policy in a Hospital

Wong Yin Yin Adv Dip (Med Surg), BHSc, Chow Wei Ven Adv Dip (Med Surg),1 Lee Yean Adv Dip (Med Surg), BHSc 2
Infection Control Unit, SGH
1 Ward 45 (Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine), SGH
2 Ward 74 (Neurology), SGH

ABSTRACT

Background. Patients and nurses have different preferences regarding visitation policy in a hospital. Family and patients seemed more dissatisfied with the current visitation policy i.e. restricted visitation in the local hospital while more nurses actually favoured the current visitation policy. Traditionally, nurses believe that open visitation is actually harmful to critically ill patients. Although literature reviews support open visitation, few studies have been done on how to implement and measure changes in visitation policy.

Methods. A quantitative descriptive study was conducted to explore the views of both nurses and patients on visitation policies in the Singapore General Hospital. It was a convenience sample where 145 registered nurses and 145 patients were selected from the hospital’s medical-surgical wards. A 32-item questionnaire was administered to the patients while a 33-item questionnaire was administered to the nurses.

Results. Nurses and patients had different perceptions and preferences regarding visitation policy. While 83% of nurses indicated preference for restricted visitation policy, 66% of patients preferred open visitation. Workload was found to be an important factor influencing nurses’ perception of open visitation.

Conclusion. A flexible visitation that addresses both nurses’ and patients’ concerns is needed to benefit both parties.

Keywords: nurses’ views, patients’ views, visitation policy

INTRODUCTION

Currently, most public hospitals in Singapore have a restricted visitation policy under which visitors have to abide by designated visiting hours i.e. 12 to 2pm and 5 to 8pm.

Restricted visitation, which refers to limiting the number of visitors and visiting hours, often makes a patient vulnerable to anxiety due to the reduced level of emotional support from family members.

Studies have shown that medical-surgical patients with psychological problems have longer stays. Altering visiting hours to meet the needs of these patients and their families not only enhances their psychological well-being, but also helps to reduce healthcare costs.1 However, open visitation is still not widely practiced in local hospitals.

Open visitation and constant enquiries from relatives on the patients’ condition raises nurses’ concern about disruption to their work.2 In addition, inadequate staffing often leads to nurses’ having to take on multiple roles at work.3

Research on open visitation has however shown the beneficial effect of family involvement in the care of patients.1,4,5 Hence a descriptive study was conducted in a local hospital over 2 weeks to identify patients’ and nurses’ perceptions of open versus restricted visitation in the medical-surgical wards. The findings of the study could provide useful information should the hospital review its visitation policy and help improve patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Research Questions

  1. What are the nurses’ and patients’ perceptions and preferences on restricted and open visitation in medical-surgical wards?
  2. What are the factors contributing to patients’ and nurses’ preference?

Research Design

A quantative descriptive study was conducted between 12 April to 20 June 2004 in medical-surgical wards of the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) to explore the views of patients and nurses on visitation policy. There were multiple variables, which were each distinctively described to enhance the participant’s understanding.

Sampling

Registered Nurses (RNs) with more than one year of working experience in medical-surgical wards were included. Seven to eight registered nurses were conveniently sampled from the 20 wards based on 10% of the RN population in SGH. RNs on the permanent night shift or working on part-time basis at the time of study were excluded.

All English literate patients above 18 years of age who did not have underlying mental conditions and who were admitted to either a B2 or C class ward for at least 3 days were included. Patients who were confused, demented, in pain or clinically unstable were excluded.

The Finite Population Multiplier formula was used to calculate the sample size based on 5% of the nurse and patient population. This formula was chosen as it gave a confidence level of 95%, accepted 5% margin of error and attrition rate of 5 to 10%.

Instruments

A 32-item structured questionnaire and a 33-item questionnaire were administered to patients and nurses respectively (Appendices 1 and 2). Open visitation was defined as no restriction to the number of visitors and visiting hours. Restricted visitation was defined as limiting the number of visitors and visiting hours per hospital. Prior to the actual study, a pilot study was conducted on 5 RNs to test the content validity of the questionnaire. A validity test was not run using SPSS as 5 RNs were chosen to test for content validity. Ambiguous or unclear questions were dealt with through feedback from the 5 RNs.

Appendix 1. Patient’s questionnaire.

Appendix 2. Nurse’s questionnaire.

Data Collection Methods

Questionnaires were administered to the nurses in a designated room in the ward. The principal investigator and collaborators were present to answer any queries from the nurses and collect the questionnaires at the end of session. Alternatively, the researchers approached the ward managers to assist in distributing the questionnaires to the nurses. Questionnaires were then collected from the ward managers one week later.

Patients were selected from the ward census list and those who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the study. After written consent was obtained, they were briefed and the questionnaires were collected by the end of the day. The principal investigator and the collaborators were available to assist patients in completing the questionnaire if needed.

Ethical Considerations

Prior to commencement of the study, approval had been obtained from the SGH IRB/Ethics Committee. Subjects’ participation was strictly voluntary. There was no personal risk or benefit in participation and subjects could withdraw at any time without any penalty or compromised care to them. Written consent was obtained from the subjects. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained since names of the subjects were not necessary as no follow-up was required.

Data Analysis

Findings were reported as group data. All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS Version 11.0. Analysis was done using descriptive statistics, frequency distribution and chi-square. Statistical significance was set as p<0.05.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were given to 145 nurses and 145 patients in medical-surgical wards. A total to 120 (response rate=83%) and 140 (response rate=97%) questionnaires were collected from nurses and patients, respectively. Questionnaires, which were either incomplete or not returned to the researchers, were not included in the study.

Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the subjects.

Table 1. Demographic data of respondents.

There was a significant difference in the perceptions on restricted visitation (p< 0.05). These could be seen in statements 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Table 2.

Table 2. Respondents’ perceptions of restricted visitation.

No significant differences were found in most of the statements between the 2 groups (p>0.05) (Table 3). However, there was a significant difference seen in statement 5 (p <0.05). There were vast differences in patients’ and nurses’ preferences in the type of visitation (Table 4). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups.

Table 3. Respondents’ perceptions of open visitation.

Table 4. Respondents’ preference on the type of visitation.

Among nurses who preferred restricted visitation, 30% (n=30) ranked "Restricted visitation aids nurses in providing quality care to patient" as the most important reason for their preference, while 24% ranked "Restricted visitation helps nurses to organise work better" as the most important reason (Table 5).

Table 5. Statements of importance to nurses on open and restricted visitation.

Among nurses who preferred open visitation, 20% (n =4) ranked "Open visitation reduces nurses’ workload if family members participate in the care of patients" as the most important reason for their preference, while 15% (n=3) ranked "Open visitation enhances nurses’ interpersonal skills" as the most important reason.

DISCUSSION

Visiting privileges in hospitals have tended to be rigid as administrators and nurses believe that open visitation affects patients adversely and disrupts the delivery of care.6 Despite evidence showing the benefits of open visitation, nurses still impose restricted visitation at their own discretion.7 From the nurses’ point of view, open visitation often takes up more of their time, leading to difficulty in providing nursing care.5

The time spent by nurses attending to enquiries from patients’ families often makes them feel that visitors disrupt their delivery of patient care.8 Lack of time and limited ability in handling some family situations whilst maintaining control over visitors as well as patients causes stress among nurses.4 Taylor et al found that nurses felt stressed by the constant interruption by patients’ relatives and telephone and working in a noisy environment.3 Therefore, restricting visitation gives nurses a break from the constant presence of visitors.7 Nurses who have been working in the traditional setting are initially reluctant to accept the change in restricted visitation. In addition, nurses have to repeatedly answer the same questions as visitors often call throughout the day to ask about their loved one’s condition.9

Hospital visitation rules are often designed for the staff’s convenience rather than with the patients’ needs in mind.6 A study by Whitis showed that 54% of nurses determined the visiting rules and regulations.10 Nursing managers cited reasons, such as the patients’ need to rest or patients showing physiological changes, for restricting visiting hours to between 10 to 14 hours. Regulating visiting hours eventfully helps to protect the rights of the patients and ensure privacy for their roommates.6

Studies have shown that family members play an important role in patient care.1,4 Daniels cites a case of a stroke patient whose garbled words could only be understood by his wife.9 She was able to help keep her husband calm and provide the information on what her husband needed when the nurses could not comprehend him with ease.

Holl studied the psychological importance of well-being of patients and family members who had been assigned to either a restricted visitation group or a Role-Modeled group.1 The restricted visitation group was entitled to 20 minutes of visiting time 4 times a day while the Role-Modeled group had the same visiting hours plus extra time which was acceptable to both patients and their family members. The results of this study showed that Role-Modeled visiting increased patients’ perception of family social support and helped to control and decrease their anxiety.

A study by Hupcey suggests that family integration is equally important to both nurses and patients.4 An interview with 11 relatives, 10 intensive care unit (ICU) nurses and 30 ICU patients revealed that nurses often felt the need to protect the patients first, while family members often thought that patients were in stressful situations when many processes were occurring simultaneously. Although this study was more in-depth, no data analysis or reports on the results have been published.

Open visitation can have different meanings among nurses and this creates inconsistencies. A study by Livesay found that "open visiting hours" was understood to mean different things, from "open to visit with the patient at any and all times" to "flexible and patient-specific".11 Some had indicated allowing only 2 visitors at a time; length of visits at the nurse’s discretion and so on. This leads to frustration among patients, visitors and nurses themselves, causing the relationship between nurse and visitor to become adversarial.

These studies appear to show that open visitation is more advantageous than restricted visitation. However, these studies were conducted in either smaller hospitals or ICUs. The small sample size therefore limits generalisation of the findings to all patients and nurses.

The results of our study support those of the study by Taylor that nurses prefer restricted visitation.3 In the Taylor study, nurse satisfaction mean score remained consistent throughout restricted visitation.

Hupcey found that patients preferred to be taken care of by their family members when they were sick.4 However, our study found that family members were less likely to participate in patient care (P value <0.001).

In our study, patients stated that they felt less anxious when family members were present (P value <0.03). This supports the findings of the Hupcey study, which showed that patients felt protected and safe when their families were present.4

Workload was found to be the most important factor influencing nurses’ perception towards open visitation. This is supported by the Whitis study, which found that workload was the determining factor in influencing nurses’ planning of patient care.10

An initial study by Roland et al on restricted visitation showed that 65% of patients felt that more open visitation was desirable.12 These results are congruent with those of our study. A pilot study by Roland et al also found that patients expressed greater satisfaction with open visitation — satisfaction mean score increased from 3.15 to 4.42 (1=very dissatisfied and 5=very satisfied).

In our study, the majority of nurses (83%) appeared to prefer restricted visitation. For patients however, family support was an important factor.

LIMITATIONS

Some of the questionnaires were incomplete and had to be discarded, which inevitably affected the sample size. Patients also found some of the words used in the questionnaire to be difficult to understand. This would have affected the validity of the findings as patients may have misinterpreted the questions and provided inaccurate responses.

Selecting patients who met the inclusion criteria was difficult, especially when the ward staff was busy and not able to help the researchers gain access to the ward census. As a result, some patients may have been missed out, thus introducing a selection bias. The questionnaire, which was in English only, also introduced a selection bias as patients who were not English literate were not included.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed that there are some differences in nurses’ and patients’ perceptions and preferences with regard to type of visitation policy. The results showed that 83% of nurses generally preferred restricted visitation, while 66% of patients preferred open visitation. This should be considered when hospitals plan to implement any new policy on visiting hours.

In order to provide a patient-centric care, nurses should explore different ways to involve family members in the care of patients during visitation that will benefit both patients and nurses.

A creative visitation policy benefits all parties in the long run. In difficult situations, flexibility in visitation policies can be beneficial. Future studies can be conducted using a larger random sample size over a longer period of time to address the study’s limitations. It will also be beneficial to involve more hospitals in the study in order to facilitate generalisation of findings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to express our deepest appreciation to the following for their help in this study: Png Hong Hock (Assistant Director, Nursing), Kaldip Kaur (Assistant Director, Nursing), Tracy Carol Ayre (Assistant Director, Nursing), Ng Hong Eng (Ward 45), Susan Loh (Ward 74), Ng Kim Sim (Infection Control Unit), Lee Lai Chee (Infection Control Unit), Goh Sau Mui (Nanyang Polytechnic), Norwati Bte Hussin (Advanced Diploma in Medical-Surgical 2003), Tng Bee Lan (Advanced Diploma in Medical-Surgical 2003), Cheong Lai Kam (Advanced Diploma in Medical-Surgical 2003), Henie Artates Marilla (Advanced Diploma in Medical-Surgical 2003), and Clara Tai (Quality Management).

REFERENCES

  1. Holl RM. Role-Modeled visiting compared with restricted visiting on surgical cardiac patients and family members. Crit Care Nurs Q 1993; 16:70-82.
  2. Meyer EC, Kennally KF, Zika-Beres E, Cashore WJ, Oh W. Attitudes about sibling visitation in the neonatal intensive care unit. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996; 150:1021-6.
  3. Taylor S, White B, Muncer S. Nurses’ cognitive structural models of work-based stress. J Adv Nurs 1999; 29:974-83.
  4. Hupcey J. Looking out for the patient and ourselves — the process of family integration into the ICU. J Clin Nurs.1999; 8:253-62.
  5. Cullen L, Titler M, Drahozal R. Family and pet visitation in the critical care unit. Crit Care Nurs 1999; 19:84-7.
  6. Messner RL. Visiting hours: What’s really best. RN 1996; 59:27-30.
  7. Clarke CM. Children visiting family and friends on adult intensive care units: the nurses’ perspective. J Adv Nurs 2000; 31:330-8.
  8. Mee CL. Dear colleagues, visitors welcome. Nursing 2001; 31:6.
  9. Daniels DY. Visiting hours: An open ICU. RN 1996; 59:30-2.
  10. Whitis G. Visiting hospitalized patients. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19:85-8.
  11. Livesay S, Gilliam A, Mokracek M, Sebastian S, Hickey J. Nurses’ perceptions of open visiting hours in neuroscience intensive care unit. J Nurs Care Qual 2005; 20:182-9.
  12. Roland P, Russell J, Richards KC, Sullivan SC. Visitation in critical care: processes and outcomes of a performance improvement initiative. J Nurs Care Qual 2001; 15:18-26.
SGH Proceedings Current Issue Past Issues Editorial Committee Guidelines for Contributors
About us   Programmes   Services   Faculty   Virtual classroom   News