Death and bereavement in a paediatric intensive care unit: Parental perceptions of staff support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine which staff behaviours and interventions were helpful to a family who had a child die in the intensive care unit (ICU) and which behaviours could be improved. METHODS: Families whose child died six to 18 months earlier were invited to participate. Families whose child's death involved a coroner's inquiry were excluded. Family members were interviewed by a grief counselor, and completed the Grief Experience Inventory Profile and an empirically designed questionnaire. RESULTS: No family refused to participate. All family members (13 families, 24 individuals) reported that they wanted, were offered and had: time to be alone with their child, time to hold the child, chances to discuss their feelings, and an opportunity to cry and express their emotions openly. Tangible mementos of the child were appreciated. Support provided by nursing staff was rated as excellent. Some physicians appeared to be abrupt, cold and unfeeling. Hospital social workers and chaplains, when available, were appreciated. Parents valued access to private space and holding their child, but these options needed to be suggested, as they did not know to ask for them. Some families wanted more information about funeral arrangements; most wanted more timely information about autopsy results and feedback on organ donations. Follow-up contact from the hospital about four weeks after the death was valued. Families saw the study as an opportunity to provide feedback that may help others. CONCLUSIONS: Many acute bereavement interventions need to be initiated by staff because families do not know to request them. Physicians do not always meet individual family's needs for support. Contact initiated by staff following a death is appreciated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".