Interprofessional Shared Decision Making in the NICU: A Survey of an Interprofessional Healthcare Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to determine how different membersof an interprofessional (IP) team (nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, and other professionals) perceived collaboration and satisfaction with the decisionmaking process across three decision types (triage, chronic condition management, values-sensitive decisions) in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).Methods and Findings: All members of the team at a tertiary NICU in Canada who consented to the study received a modified version of the Collaboration and Satisfaction about Care Decisions (CSACD) instrument. A total of 96 completed surveys were returned (response rate of 81.4). Collaboration scores were calculatedfor each participant, professional group, and the IP team. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to investigate the relationship between perceived collaboration about decision making and satisfaction with the decision-making process. Inter-group comparisons across different decision types were also calculated. The majority of statistically significant differences in professional perspectives about decision making were about triage decisions. Nurses and respiratory therapists were more likely than other groups to feel the decision-making process was inadequate. There was a strong, positive correlation between perceived collaboration in decision making, satisfaction with the decision-making process, and satisfaction with the decision.Conclusions: Findings from this survey suggest that healthcare professionals' views differ about what constitutes optimum interprofessional shared decision making(IPSDM), and the decision type is an important influencing factor for IPSDM.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".