Is there a role for clowns in paediatric intensive care units?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospital clowning is a programme in healthcare facilities involving visits from specially trained actors. In the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU), clowning may appear inappropriate and less intuitive. The patient could appear too ill and/or sedated, the environment too crowded or chaotic and the parents too stressed. Relying on our experience with professionally trained clowns both in France and Canada, the purpose of this article is to offer a model for hospital clowning and to suggest standards of practice for the implementation of clowning in PICUs. In this work, we provide a framework for the implementation of clown care in the PICU, to overcome the challenges related to the complex technical environment, the patient's critical illness and the high parental stress levels. Regardless of the specifics of the PICU, our experience suggests that professional clown activity is feasible, safe and can offer multiple benefits to the child, his/her parents and to hospital personnel. Due to the specific challenges in the PICU, clowns must be educated and prepared to work in this highly specialised environment. We stress that prior to clowning in a PICU, professional performers must be highly trained, experienced, abide by a code of ethics and be fully accepted by the treating healthcare team.
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 | 0.000 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".