Can the UK 24-item family satisfaction in the intensive care unit questionnaire be used to evaluate quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the ICU? A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The experiences and satisfaction of family members of patients are important indicators of healthcare quality in the intensive care unit. The family satisfaction in the intensive care unit (FS-ICU-24) questionnaire, developed in Canada and now validated in the UK, is becoming the gold standard measure to evaluate family members' satisfaction with the intensive care unit. To inform future use of the UK FS-ICU-24 to evaluate quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the intensive care unit, we set out to explore the extent to which the 24-scored items and domains of the UK FS-ICU-24 reflect common suggestions and priorities for quality improvement self-reported as important to family members in the UK. METHODS: Two data sources were thematically analysed - (1) open-text responses from family members who completed the UK FS-ICU-24 in a large observational cohort study; (2) a set of quality improvement activities generated by patients, family members and staff through experience-based co-design in a mixed-methods' intensive care unit quality improvement study. Summarised themes were then mapped to the 24-scored items and domains of the UK FS-ICU-24 to assess coverage by the UK FS-ICU-24. RESULTS: We found a good degree of coverage between the topics and themes identified as important to family members with the 24-scored items and domains of the UK FS-ICU-24. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the face validity of the UK FS-ICU-24 and indicates that its inclusion as an outcome measure for evaluating quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the intensive care unit is appropriate.
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 | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".