PICU-Based Rehabilitation and Outcomes Assessment: A Survey of Pediatric Critical Care Physicians*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Characterize current practices for PICU-based rehabilitation, and physician perceptions and attitudes, barriers, resources, and outcome assessment in contemporary PICU settings. DESIGN: International, self-administered, quantitative, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Online survey distributed from March 2017 to April 2017. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Pediatric critical care physicians who subscribed to email distribution lists of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators, the Pediatric Neurocritical Care Research Group, or the Prevalence of Acute Critical Neurological Disease in Children: A Global Epidemiological Assessment study group, and visitors to the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies website. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 170 subjects who began the survey, 148 completed it. Of those who completed the optional respondent information, most reported working in an academic medical setting and were located in the United States. The main findings were 1) a large majority of PICU physicians reported working in institutions with no guidelines for PICU-based rehabilitation, but expressed interest in developing and implementing such guidelines; 2) despite this lack of guidelines, an overwhelming majority of respondents reported that their current practices would involve consultation of multiple rehabilitation services for each case example provided; 3) PICU physicians believed that additional research evidence is needed to determine efficacy and optimal implementation of PICU-based rehabilitation; 4) PICU physicians reported significant barriers to implementation of PICU-based rehabilitation across centers; and 5) low routine assessment of long-term functional outcomes of PICU patients, although some centers have developed multidisciplinary follow-up programs. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians lack PICU-based rehabilitation guidelines despite great interest and current practices involving a high degree of PICU-based rehabilitation consultation. Data are needed to identify best practices and necessary resources in the delivery of ICU-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation and long-term functional outcomes assessment to optimize recovery of children and families affected by critical illness.
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 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".