In the pursuit of partnership: patient and family engagement in critical care medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient and family partnership in critical care medicine research and clinical care is essential to achieve patient and family-centered care. Although there is an increasing interest in patient and family engagement, research is lacking to direct clinicians and researchers on how to provide opportunities for meaningful engagement. We review the recent literature and provide examples from our own experiences to guide all parties in this important and emerging area. RECENT FINDINGS: Though the literature is relatively nascent, studies suggest that there is a desire to engage patients and families in critical care medicine research and clinical care, however, uncertainty exists on how to achieve this goal. Engagement exists on a spectrum from presence to shared decision-making and direct contributions to care; most engagement in critical care medicine involves participation in research and presence at the bedside. Expectation management is essential for meaningful engagement and true partnership. Challenges to patient and family engagement exist, including determining appropriate compensation, aligning engagement with needs and skills, and recruitment, training and retention. These challenges can be mitigated with thoughtful planning and management. SUMMARY: Patient and family engagement in critical care medicine is an emerging field that requires further study to support definitive conclusions. Until then, it is important to match interested patients and family members with appropriate opportunities and provide training and support to ensure meaningful engagement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".