Do You Know My Child? Continuity of Nursing Care in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents of children with complex, chronic conditions report a desire for continuity of care, but relatively little is known about the ways in which nursing continuity of care occurs and the extent to which it is delivered in the inpatient setting. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis, which arose from a study on best practices in parent/nurse interactions in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), was to explore the delivery of continuity of nursing care in the PICU from the perspective of both parents and nurses. METHODS: A qualitative, grounded theory study using situational analysis was conducted with seven parents and 12 nurse participants from a single PICU. Data sources included in-depth interviews, observation, and organizational written materials. Data were coded and analyzed using memoing and situational and positional maps to highlight emerging themes, context, and positions within the data. RESULTS: Parents repeatedly endorsed a desire for continuity of nursing care, wanting to ensure that the bedside nurse valued their child as an individual and understood the complexities of the child's care regimen. Nurses understood this need but faced both contextual and personal challenges to achieving continuity, including fluctuations in staffing needs, training demands, fear of emotional entanglement, and concern for missed learning opportunities. DISCUSSION: Continuity of nursing care is highly valued by parents of children with complex chronic condition in the PICU, but significant barriers to optimal delivery exist within the current critical care environment. Mechanisms for supporting nurses to deliver continuity of care are needed, as are alternative ways to help parents feel that all nurses caring for their child have the knowledge necessary to deliver safe and compassionate care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".