Interprofessional intensive care unit team interactions and medical crises: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has suggested that interprofessional collaboration could improve patient outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Maintaining optimal interprofessional interactions in a setting where unpredictable medical crises occur periodically is however challenging. Our study aimed to investigate the perceptions of ICU health care professionals regarding how acute medical crises affect their team interactions. We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews of ICU nurses, staff physicians, and respiratory therapists. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed, and the analysis was undertaken using an inductive thematic approach. Our data indicated that the nature of interprofessional interactions changed as teams passed through three key temporal periods around medical crises. During the "pre-crisis period", interactions were based on the mutual respect of each other's expertise. During the "crisis period", hierarchical interactions were expected and a certain lack of civility was tolerated. During the "post-crisis period", divergent perceptions emerged amongst health professionals. Post-crisis team dispersion left the nurses with questions and emotions not expressed by other team members. Nurses believed that systematic interprofessional feedback sessions held immediately after a crisis could address some of their needs. Further research is needed to establish the possible benefits of strategies addressing ICU health care professionals' specific needs for interprofessional feedback after a medical crisis.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".