Family presence and visitation in critical care : a rapid evidence assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients and families want to be in close proximity to one another during the phase of critical illness. This has historically been challenged by restrictive hospital visiting hours. Nurses have played the gatekeeper role and decided who could visit the patient, when, and for how long. A scholarly review of the existing literature was conducted to identify what patients, families and nurses believe about visiting and to determine and suggest best evidence for practice, policy, education and research. Using a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) methodology 18 studies were evaluated through the lens of Patient and Family Centred Care. The best evidence is presented as well as the recommendations for best practice, policy, education and future research to help promote family presence in the Intensive Care Unit. Families and patients had improved outcomes, physiological and psychological, when Intensive Care Unit policy supports the presence of the family at the bedside. Nurses felt that working with families was part of their expected practice but struggled with the increased workload. They also struggled with relinquishing control over visitation but when they did patients and families felt empowered. The key recommendations are to create flexible patient controlled visitation policies in the Intensive Care Unit, replicate studies to reinforce the findings from the studies presented, provide education for nurses about family nursing, and education for families and patients regarding the unit policies and events.
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 | 0.192 | 0.345 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".