A survey of the attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary team members towards family presence at bedside rounds in the intensive care unit
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".