MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468434560 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1172290

A Typology of ICU Patients and Families from the Clinician Perspective: Toward Improving Communication

2016· article· en· W2468434560 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
FundersGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsTypologyPerspective (graphical)MedicineIntensive care unitMEDLINENursingPsychologyIntensive care medicineSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an exploratory case study of clinician-patient communications in a specific clinical environment. It describes how intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians' technical and social categorizations of patients and families shape the flow of communication in these acute care settings. Drawing on evidence from a year-long ethnographic study of four ICUs, we develop a typology of patients and families as viewed by the clinicians who care for them. Each type, or category, of patient is associated with differing communication strategies, with compliant patients and families engaged in greater depth. In an era that prioritizes patient engagement through communication for all patients, our findings suggest that ICU teams need to develop new strategies for engaging and communicating with not just compliant patients and families, but those who are difficult as well. We discuss innovative methods for developing such strategies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it