Virtual Family-Centered Rounds During the COVID-19 Pandemic – Technology Usability Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-centered rounds (FCR) are multidisciplinary rounds, involving patients and caregivers with the aim of shared decision making in medical care planning. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a tertiary care pediatric hospital re-engineered the in-person FCR process used by inpatient Pediatric Medicine teams implemented virtual family-centered rounds (vFCR). As part of a mixed methods study evaluating vFCR, naturalistic observation was used to evaluate the usability of vFCR technology. Functional and user requirements were assessed and confirmed through observation of interactions with technology intended to support vFCR. The duration of individual patient rounds and transition time between patients was also captured. Technology interactions were assessed in terms of what worked (successful interactions) and what did not work (usability issues and errors). Neilsen and Norman’s (1994) usability heuristics were used to support the evaluation and explanation of findings. While naturalistic observation yielded clear results in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, user satisfaction was not formally examined. The identified usability requirements and key characteristics for ease of use and adoption of vFCR identified in this study can be used by other hospitals looking to implement or improve inpatient virtual care technology usability.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it