MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088628956 · doi:10.1097/anc.0b013e3181afab3c

Including Parents in the Evaluation of Clinical Microsystems in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

2009· review· en· W2088628956 on OpenAlexaff
Misty D. Reis, Shannon D. Scott, Gwen R. Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal intensive care unitPerceptionMicrosystemHealth careIntensive careAffect (linguistics)NursingFamily centered carePediatricsIntensive care medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal intensive care is an area of healthcare that has experienced significant growth in recent years. As a result, "megaunits" of more than 60 beds are not uncommon. Delivering care in units of this size that incorporates the principles of family-centered care and that is satisfying to both staff and parents is challenging. One proposed method to enhance delivery of care in the megaunit NICU has been to implement a clinical microsystem approach. Up to now, research to evaluate the efficacy of a clinical microsystem has focused primarily on staff satisfaction and perception. However, implementing the clinical microsystem within the NICU requires that careful attention be paid to the parents and their experience and perception of their infant's care in the NICU. This article reviews the basic principles of family-centered care, identifies components of care that affect parents' satisfaction with NICU care, reviews the theoretical underpinnings of the clinical microsystem, and discusses areas for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.423
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207