Family-Centered Rounds on Pediatric Wards: A PRIS Network Survey of US and Canadian Hospitalists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to examine pediatric hospitalist rounding practices and characteristics associated with programs conducting family-centered rounds (FCRs). METHODS: The Pediatric Hospitalist Triennial Survey, sent to a subset of pediatric hospitalists on the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings listserv from the United States and Canada, consisted of 63 questions on sociodemographic characteristics, training, practice characteristics, and rounding practices. RESULTS: Among 265 respondents (response rate: 70%), 78% practiced in academic hospitals and 22% in nonacademic hospitals. The prevalences of specific rounding categories were as follows: FCRs, 44%; sit-down, 24%; hallway, 21%; others, 11%. FCRs occurred significantly more often in academic (48%) than nonacademic (31%) hospitals (P = .04). FCRs can include pediatric residents, bedside nurses, charge nurses, case managers, pharmacists, and social workers. Academic settings and higher average daily patient censuses, but not FCRs, were significantly associated with prolonged rounding duration. The most commonly perceived FCR benefits included increased family involvement and understanding, trainee role modeling, and effective team communication. Physical constraints, trainees' apprehensions, and time were the main perceived FCR barriers. Greater perceived benefit/barrier ratios, FCR benefits, and family involvement in care were associated with a greater likelihood of conducting FCRs, whereas a greater number of perceived FCR barriers was associated with not conducting FCRs. CONCLUSIONS: FCRs were the most-common rounding category among respondents. FCRs were not associated with a self-reported increase in rounding duration. Successful FCR implementation may require educating staff members and trainees about FCR benefits and addressing FCR barriers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".