An office or a bedroom? Challenges for family-centered care in the pediatric intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the modern pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) has followed general pediatrics and adopted the family-centered care model, little is known about how families prospectively experience PICU care. The authors' goal was to better understand the experiences of families whose child was hospitalized in a PICU. They conducted a 12-month prospective ethnographic study in a PICU in a tertiary care hospital in a large North American urban center. Data were obtained via participant-observation and formal and informal interviews with 18 families and staff key informants. Findings revealed a disconnect between the espoused model of family-centered care and quotidian professional practices. This divergence emerged in the authors' analysis as a heuristic that contrasts a professional "office" to a sick child's "bedroom." PICU practices and protocols transformed the child into a patient and parents into visitors; issues such as noise, visitation, turf, and privacy could favor staff comfort and convenience over that of the child and family. The authors' discussion highlights suggestions to overcome this divergence in order to truly make the PICU family centered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".