Developing a Compassionate Culture Within Pediatric Rehabilitation: Does the Schwartz Rounds™ Support Both Clinical and Nonclinical Hospital Workers in Managing Their Work Experiences?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schwartz Rounds™ offers an interprofessional forum for staff to openly engage in discussions about social-emotional aspects of care. We aimed to assess the perceived impact of Rounds in the health care context of pediatric rehabilitation, as well as a comparative analysis of how Rounds affected clinical versus nonclinical staff. Does effect on perceived outcomes was also investigated. Data were collected from 29 hospital staff (15 clinicians, 14 nonclinicians) who attended one, two, or three+ Rounds via semistructured interviews. Thematic analysis indicated impacts at the personal and social levels (e.g., reduced stress, increased level of approaching behaviors, normalizing and validating emotional experiences, and building bridges within the hospital). Data also revealed the novel finding of Rounds affecting professional knowledge and skills (e.g., interprofessional practice, reflective practice, clinical imagination). These findings elucidate how Schwartz Rounds™ is beneficial in a pediatric rehabilitation setting, albeit somewhat differentially for clinical and nonclinical 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".