A survey of the attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary team members towards family presence at bedside rounds in the intensive care unit
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the attitudes and perceptions of intensive care unit (ICU) staff [critical care physicians and fellows (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), allied health discipline (HD) and managers] towards family presence at bedside rounds. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: We developed, tested and administered a questionnaire to the multidisciplinary staff. SETTING: 24-Bed medical surgical ICU. RESULTS: 160/221 (72.4%) individuals responded, including 12 MDs, 95 RNs, 48 HD personnel, 4 managers and 1 unspecified. While most MDs strongly agreed and HD and management groups somewhat agreed, most RNs strongly disagreed with providing family members the option to attend rounds. Over 50% of respondents either strongly or somewhat agreed that the presence of family members prolongs rounds, reduces the medical education provided to the team and constrains delivery of negative medical information. Compared to MDs, RNs expressed greater reservation to family presence at rounds. Among RNs, more experienced RNs, expressed greater reservation with family presence during rounds. CONCLUSION: We found significant differences among the attitudes of health care providers towards family presence at bedside rounds with RNs, especially more experienced RNs, expressing the greatest reservation. Qualitative research is required to explore perceived and actual barriers to family member presence at rounds.
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.
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 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it