Parent and staff perceptions of family-centred care in two Australian children’s hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This paper is a report of the comparison of perceptions of family-centred care by hospital staff (nurses, doctors and allied health staff) and parents of hospitalised children in two Australian tertiary paediatric hospitals.Background: Family-centred care is an accepted approach to caring for children and their families in hospital. Previous publications have been inconsistent, ranging from promoting its benefits and integration into practice, reporting operational difficulties and proposing that family-centred care may not be working at all. An evaluation of the model of care is long overdue. Method: A quantitative comparative cross-sectional survey was used to collect data in 2010 from a convenience sample of 309 parents of hospitalised children and 519 staff. Participants rated 20 items grouped into three subscales of respect, collaboration and support.Findings: Both parents and staff responses were positive and parents had significantly higher subscale scores for respect, collaboration and support (all p<0.0001). Parents’ responses for 19 of the 20 items were significantly higher than for staff. The item on which parents and staff did not differ was concerned with being able to question recommendations about the child’s treatment. Conclusion: Both parents and staff had positive perceptions of their family-centred care experiences. Parents’ perception of their experience was more positive than staff perceptions of their delivery of family-centred care in hospital. Whilst the positive experience by both consumers and healthcare providers is an important finding, reasons for differences, in particular in supporting parents, require further examination.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".