Family Presence in the Adult ICU During Bedside Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand perspectives of family members of adult patients admitted to the medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) regarding their presence during procedures. METHODS: Respondents completed a questionnaire about procedures the patient had undergone, their desire to be present, and their experience. Procedures of interest were endotracheal intubation; chest compressions; vascular catheter insertion; and gastric, chest, and rectal tubes. Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) was completed at the time of questionnaire completion and again 1 month later to evaluate the psychological impact of witnessing a procedure. RESULTS: Ninety-seven respondents completed the questionnaire on behalf of 72 patients. More than 90% patients had at least 1 procedure. Only 29 (30%) family members were present for at least 1 procedure, and 44% to 100% wished to be present. Of the 68 respondents not present for a procedure, 18 (26.5%) wanted to be present. The IES-R was completed by 52 (95%) of 55 respondents who witnessed any procedure at time 1 and 28 (51%) of 55 respondents at time 2; mean IES-R scores were 8.0 and 8.8 ( P = .68), respectively. Only 2 participants had IES-R >33, signifying the likely presence of posttraumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSION: Family members wish to be present for ICU procedures, and there are no adverse psychological effects.
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 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".