Patients’ and Families’ Satisfaction with Visiting Policies in Cardiac Intensive Care Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Families play a vital role in the recovery of patients admitted to Intensive Care Units. They can help patients to adapt themselves to the crisis and feel more satisfied. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined the patients’ and families’ satisfaction with the current visiting policies in Cardiac Intensive Care Units in the largest Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center of Iran. METHOD: This research used a cross-sectional design with a simple random sampling. To do so, 303 patients admitted to those Cardiac Intensive Care Units and their families responded to a two-part questionnaire between September 2014 and March 2015. The inclusion criteria for patients were aged between 18 and 85, acceptable general status to respond to the questions of the questionnaire, and having one of the cardiac diseases symptoms. Intention to attend was the only inclusion criterion for the family members. RESULTS: The results showed that 167(55.1%) of the participants were dissatisfied with the limited visiting policies of the Cardiac Intensive Care Units, while the satisfaction rate was 43(14.2%). The remaining participants (30.7%) were slightly satisfied with the visiting policies in Cardiac Intensive Care Units. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered care is an expectation among patients and their families in the Cardiac Intensive Care Units. It seems that a change in visiting policies is necessary.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".