Cultural and Religious Aspects of Care in the Intensive Care Unit within the Context of Patient-Centred Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On January 31, 2007, Ontario's Critical Care Strategy hosted a workshop for healthcare providers examining cultural and religious perspectives on patient care in the intensive care unit (ICU). The workshop provided an opportunity for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) to engage service providers and discuss important issues regarding cultural and religious perspectives affecting critical care service delivery in Ontario. While a favourable response to the workshop was anticipated, the truly remarkable degree to which the more than 200 front-line healthcare providers, policy developers, religious and cultural leaders, researchers and academics who were in attendance embraced the need for this type of dialogue to take place suggests that discussion around this and other "difficult" issues related to care in a critical care setting is long overdue. Without exception, the depth of interest in being able to provide patient-centred care in its most holistic sense--that is, respecting all aspects of the patients' needs, including cultural and religious--is a top-of-mind issue for many people involved in the healthcare system, whether at the bedside or the planning table. This article provides an overview of that workshop, the reaction to it, and within that context, examines the need for a broad-based, non-judgmental and respectful approach to designing care delivery in the ICU. The article also addresses these complex and challenging issues while recognizing the constant financial and human resource constraints and the growing demand for care that is exerting tremendous pressure on Ontario's limited critical care resources. Finally, the article also explores the healthcare system's readiness and appetite for an informed, intelligent and respectful debate on the many issues that, while often difficult to address, are at the heart of ensuring excellence in critical care delivery.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".