MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091619319 · doi:10.1097/anc.0000000000000046

Improvements in Staff Quality of Work Life and Family Satisfaction Following the Move to Single-Family Room NICU Design

2014· article· en· W2091619319 on OpenAlexaff
Jo Watson, Marion DeLand, Sharyn Gibbins, Elizabeth MacMillan York, Kate Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityGibson Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelocationNursingNeonatal intensive care unitWork (physics)Quality (philosophy)Family centered careSample (material)Unit (ring theory)Job satisfactionSingle familyFamily medicineHealth carePsychologyPediatricsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether there were differences in staff quality of work life and parent satisfaction when a neonatal intensive care unit moved from an open-bay design to a single-room model of care. DESIGN: This descriptive study measured staff quality of work life and family satisfaction before and at 2 time periods after the relocation of a perinatal centre and the introduction of single-family room care. Differences in work life quality and satisfaction were determined using 2-sample t-tests. RESULT: There were improvements in staff quality of work life and family satisfaction at both time periods following the move. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned may be of value to other units considering such a move. A neonatal intensive care unit designed to contribute to parental and staff well-being is a model to be considered for future neonatal designs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207