Exploring Parental and Staff Perceptions of the Family-Integrated Care Model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family-integrated care (FICare) is an innovative model of care developed at Mount Sinai Hospital, Canada, to better integrate parents into the team caring for their infant in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The effects of FICare on neonatal outcomes and parental anxiety were assessed in an international multicenter randomized trial. As an Australian regional level 3 NICU that was randomized to the intervention group, we aimed to explore parent and staff perceptions of the FICare program in our dual occupancy NICU. SUBJECTS AND DESIGN: This qualitative study took place in a level 3 NICU with 5 parent participants and 8 staff participants, using a post implementation review design. METHODS: Parents and staff perceptions of FICare were explored through focus group methodology. Thematic content analysis was done on focus group transcripts. RESULTS: Parents and staff perceived the FICare program to have had a positive impact on parental confidence and role attainment and thought that FICare improved parent-to-parent and parent-to-staff communication. Staff reported that nurses working with families in the program performed less hands-on care and spent more time educating and supporting parents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: FICare may change current NICU practice through integrating and accepting parents as active members of the infant's care team. In addition, nurse's roles may transition from bedside carer to care coordinator, educating and supporting parents during their journey through the NICU. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further research is needed to assess the long-term impact of FICare on neonates, parents, and staff.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it