MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100353479 · doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0107

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Bedside Versus Conference-Room Case Presentation in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

2007· article· en· W2100353479 on OpenAlexaff
Marc-Antoine Landry, Sylvie Lafrenaye, Marie-Claude Roy, Claude Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Randomized controlled trialPediatricsRandomizationMorningFamily medicineEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Case presentation and teaching performed at the bedside are declining. Patients' preference between bedside case presentation and conference-room case presentation is divergent in the literature. Residents seem to prefer the conference room. The objective of this study was to ascertain whether there was a difference of satisfaction and comfort between bedside case presentation and conference-room case presentation for the parents of patients hospitalized in the PICU and for the residents in training in the PICU. METHODS: Every child hospitalized in the PICU who had 2 consecutive morning rounds, performed in the presence of the same resident, attending pediatrician, and parent, was eligible for the study. The study began with the first patient's case presentation after admission in the PICU. Randomization was on the first case presentation: bedside or conference room. On the second day, the other type of case presentation was performed. After each round, the parents and the resident filled out a questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty-seven parents of 22 patients answered both questionnaires, and 21 questionnaires were answered by residents. Parents' satisfaction was significantly higher during bedside case presentation (96 vs 92, answers reported on a 100-mm linear scale), they preferred bedside case presentation (95 vs 15), and they were more comfortable attending bedside teaching (89 vs 19). There was no difference in the residents' satisfaction nor in their comfort giving the actual case presentation. Residents, on the other hand, were significantly more comfortable asking questions (84 vs 69) and being asked questions (85 vs 67) during conference-room case presentation. A total of 81% of the parents wished that the next case presentation would take place at the bedside. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of a clinical case presentation performed at the bedside in the PICU context that seems to satisfy parents without causing too much discomfort to residents. Thus, bedside case presentation could be a very good teaching strategy in university hospitals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
DomainMethods
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

Citations143
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207