77 Evaluating virtual family-centered rounds effectiveness, efficiency and usability during the COVID-19 pandemic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Virtual care has seen exponential growth since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the evaluation of virtual care tools and services is lacking, particularly in the inpatient setting. In April 2020, we virtualized our in-person family-centered rounds (FCR) process and demonstrated the ability to perform virtual family-centered rounds (vFCR). In this study, we evaluate vFCR against the accepted standard of in-person FCR to ensure high quality care is maintained and encourage adoption by health care providers, administrators, patients and caregivers. Objectives The objective of this study is to compare vFCR to established core components and timing for in-person FCR. Perceptions of overall satisfaction, safety and technology usability were also explored. Design/Methods This is a mixed methods process evaluation of vFCR. Data collection was through virtual and in-person observation and post-vFCR survey of participants. Virtual observations focused on timing and adherence to core components of FCR, while in-person naturalistic observations focused on technology interaction and usability. Observation data underwent quantitative and content analysis. Data from post-vFCR questionnaires were subject to descriptive statistical analysis and content analysis of free-text responses. Results Sixty-two vFCR were observed virtually and 35 vFCR were observed in-person. Adherence to the core components of FCR during vFCR was variable (Table 1). Mean duration of a single patient round was 8.44 ± 4.93 minutes, with a mean transition time between patients of 3.96 ± 2.96 minutes. One hundred and four surveys were completed (76% response rate), 42 by patients and caregivers and 62 by members of the interdisciplinary medical team. The majority (93%) of respondents surveyed were satisfied or very satisfied with vFCR, and 67% felt it was important or very important to do FCR virtually during the pandemic to keep people safer. Importantly, vFCR was perceived by 96% of medical team members as supporting shared decision making with patients and caregivers, and 78% of patients/caregivers felt like a valued partner in their (child’s) care. Virtual family-centered rounds technology was perceived as easy or very easy to use by 95% of respondents. Additional positive and negative comments were submitted by 38% of respondents about their experience with vFCR (Figure 1). Conclusion Virtual family-centered rounds afford adherence to the core components of family-centered rounds. Satisfaction with vFCR and perceived usability of vFCR technology were both highly rated. Respondents also felt vFCR were important for safety during the pandemic. Rounds duration and transition times between patients were seen as opportunities for improvement. Observation and questionnaire data suggest the efficiency and quality of vFCR may be optimized through routine training on the rounding process and technology, as well as recognition of family-centered rounds as a component of inpatient pediatric care that should be prioritized.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».