Experiences of Parental Presence in the Induction of Anesthesia in a Canadian Tertiary Pediatric Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Parental presence at induction of anesthesia remains controversial and has been reported to provide mixed results. As such, parental presence at induction of anesthesia is not practiced routinely everywhere. There are currently limited data describing the practice of parental presence at induction of anesthesia or the experiences and perceptions of parents in Canada. Objectives We sought to investigate (1) the frequency of parental presence at induction of anesthesia and (2) the experiences and perceptions of parents accompanying their child into the operating room compared to those who did not at a tertiary Canadian pediatric hospital. Methods Institutional quality improvement approval was obtained. This study was a cross-sectional survey. Parents waiting in the parent surgical waiting room during the procedure were invited to complete a web-based survey. Consent was implied via completing the survey. The cross-sectional survey elicited the prevalence of parental presence during induction of anesthesia as well as their experience and perceptions. We also investigated the parents' preferences for preoperative education. Results Of the 448 parents approached, 403 completed the survey between May and June 2017. Sixty-eight (16.9% [13.4-20.9]) parents accompanied their child into the operating room (parental presence at induction of anesthesia), while 335/403 (83.1% [79.1-86.7]) did not (no-parental presence at induction of anesthesia). Reasons for not accompanying their child into the operating room included "not being aware they could" (158/335, 47.2% [41.9-52.5]), "I didn't think my child needed me" (107/335, 31.9% [27.2-37.1]), "my child was coping well" (46/335, 13.4% [10.5-17.8]), and "I was anxious" (47/335, 14.0% [10.7-18.2]). Most of the parents in the parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort (66/67, 98.5% [95.6-101.2]) reported that they believed their child benefited/would have benefited from their presence during induction of anesthesia compared to those in the no-parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort (137/335, 40.9% [35.8-46.2]), P < 0.001. Overall, 51/335 (14.7%) parents in the no-parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort and 3/67 (4.5%) of those in the parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort felt that offering parental presence at induction of anesthesia should depend on factors including child's age as well as the level of coping and anxiety. More patients in the no-parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort felt that parental presence at induction of anesthesia should also depend on the child's age and whether the child was coping. Parents felt that face-to-face discussions with clinicians are most effective for discussing future parental presence at induction of anesthesia. Conclusions We have shown that most parents at our institution do not undergo parental presence at induction of anesthesia and are for the most part comfortable with their child going unaccompanied into the operating room. Administrators and clinicians seeking to implement parental presence policies should consider navigating parental presence at induction of anesthesia with evidence-based approaches tailored to each parent and their child.
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 | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».