Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the ways in which healthcare professionals work together in the ICU setting, through a consideration of the contextual, organizational, processual, and relational factors that impact their interprofessional collaboration. DESIGN: Data from over 350 hours of ethnographic observation and 35 semistructured interviews with clinicians in two ICUs were collected by two medical anthropologists over a period of 6 months. SETTING: Medical surgical ICUs in two urban research hospitals in Canada and the United States. MAIN RESULTS: Although the concept of teamwork is often central to interventions to improve patient safety in the ICU, our observations suggest that this concept does not fully describe how interprofessional work actually occurs in this setting. With the exception of crisis situations, most interprofessional interactions in the two ICUs we studied could be better described as forms of interprofessional work other than teamwork, which include collaboration, coordination, and networking. CONCLUSIONS: A singular notion of team is too reductive to account for the ways in which work happens in the ICU and therefore cannot be taken for granted in quality improvement initiatives or among healthcare professionals in this setting. Adapting interventions to the complex nature of interprofessional work and each ICUs unique local context is an important and necessary step to ensure the delivery of safe and effective patient 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".