MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2761635299 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx086.044

A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF COMMUNICATION CRISES IN THE PEDIATRIC IN-PATIENT SETTING: A 360O PERSPECTIVE

2017· article· en· W2761635299 on OpenAlexaff
Amonpreet Sandhu, Suzette Cooke, Chantelle Barnard

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupGrounded theoryConstruct (python library)Perspective (graphical)PsychologyHealth carePerceptionQualitative researchNursingMedical educationMedicineDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Communication is a core clinical skill in medicine. In paediatrics, communication is complicated by the nature of the physician-parent-child triad and the parents’ role as “gatekeeper” of information and “protector” of his/her child. Communication crises (CC) in this study are defined as interactions between families and the medical team that result in delays or obstructions in patient care and negatively impact the therapeutic relationship. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to identify, describe and characterize the types of CC that commonly occur in the pediatric inpatient setting. DESIGN/METHODS: Data was collected via focus groups with key informants. Key informants were individuals who experience CC firsthand or are called upon to support conflict resolution. FG proceeded through open-ended questions to explore experiences and perceptions about CC. FG were audio taped and transcribed. Data were analyzed using grounded theory and constant comparison methods. RESULTS: Data was collected via two semi-structured interviews with families (2) and seven focus groups (FG) including paediatricians (10), nurses (6), social workers (4), hospital administrators (5) and familes (2). An eighth verification focus group (6) was conducted in order to present the initial concepts and constructs from the data analysis and seek feedback from participants re our initial findings and the construct under development. This verification focus group was a mixture of health care provider types. Three major themes and associated subthemes emerged; 1) Health care team factors: care processes, interprofessional communication and individual communication skills 2) Family factors: language barriers, mental illness, belief systems and socioeconomic and 3) Patient factors: acuity, complexity, unstable condition and unclear diagnosis. The presence of a trusting relationship (TR) between the family and team is the core variable identified as critical to the communication process. CONCLUSION: CC are a complex event and this study provides an initial analysis of these types of situations. A TR between families and the team is critical in successfully navigating CC yet the inpatient setting poses unique challenges in doing so.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→