Defining and Redefining Family Involvement in Practice: An Implementation Trial of a Locally Adaptable Patient-Centered Professional Development Tool in Two Ontario Intensive Care Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Research on best practices for family member involvement has shown that such involvement improves care quality in critical care settings and helps to reduce medical errors leading to adverse events. Although many critical care units promote the principle of "patient-centered care" and family member involvement, there can be a significant gap between knowledge about these processes and their translation into practice. This article is based on an implementation trial of a patient and family involvement knowledge-based tool that involves an educational component for frontline health care workers. By combining ethnographic observation, semistructured interviews, focus groups, and document analysis, we were able to not only examine health care provider views on family involvement but also explore the areas of tension that arose in practice because the introduction of the family involvement tool exposed local factors that shaped the conditions of possibility of family involvement. In particular, unspoken preferences, assumptions, and concerns about family involvement were brought to the fore because this intervention disrupted well-entrenched power dynamics related to family involvement and professional boundaries. Through this ethnographic research, we found that the concept of patient-centered care is not uncontroversial among health care providers and that the form of its practice was largely up for individual interpretation. Interventions and policies that aim to promote patient-centered and family-centered care would benefit from addressing the ways in which these ideas affect the work of different health care professionals and incorporating nursing concerns around family involvement.
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 | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".