Family Presence during Resuscitation: A Canadian Critical Care Society Position Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that patient outcomes are not affected by the offering of family presence during resuscitation (FPDR), and that psychological outcomes are neutral or improved in family members of adult patients. The exclusion of family members from the resuscitation area should, therefore, be reassessed. OBJECTIVE: The present Canadian Critical Care Society position paper is designed to help clinicians and institutions decide whether to incorporate FPDR as part of their routine clinical practice, and to offer strategies to implement FPDR successfully. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature search of the perspectives of health care providers, patients and families on the topic of FPDR, and considered the relevant ethical values of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy and justice in light of the clinical evidence for FPDR. They reviewed randomized controlled trials and observational studies of FPDR to determine strategies that have been used to screen family members, select appropriate chaperones and educate staff. RESULTS: FPDR is an ethically sound practice in Canada, and may be considered for the families of adult and pediatric patients in the hospital setting. Hospitals that choose to implement FPDR should develop transparent policies regarding which family members are to be offered the opportunity to be present during the resuscitation. Experienced chaperones should accompany and support family members in the resuscitation area. Intensive educational interventions and increasing experience with FPDR are associated with increased support for the practice from health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: FPDR should be considered to be an important component of patient and family-centred care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".