MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309242654 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000787

Family Presence on Rounds in Adult Critical Care: A Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4309242654 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLFamily medicineHealth careData extractionMEDLINENursingMedicineFamily caregiversPsychologyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family presence on rounds involves allowing family members to participate in daily healthcare team rounds and is recommended by critical care professional societies. Yet, family presence on rounds is not performed in many institutions. There is a need to synthesize the current evidence base for this practice to inform healthcare providers of the potential benefits and challenges of this approach. The main objective of this study was to explore the impact of family presence on adult ICU rounds on family and healthcare providers. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases were last searched on January 28, 2022. Studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. STUDY SELECTION: Studies involving family presence during rounds that included family or healthcare provider perspectives or outcomes were selected. There were no limitations on study design. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative and quantitative family and provider perspectives, barriers and challenges to family presence, and study outcomes were extracted from studies. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis published guidelines were followed. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 16 studies included. Family reported family presence on rounds as a means of information transfer and an opportunity to ask care-related questions. Family presence on rounds was associated with increased family satisfaction with care, physician comfort, and improved physician-family relationship. Healthcare providers reported a positive perception of family presence on rounds but were concerned about patient confidentiality and perceived efficacy of rounds. Family presence was found to increase rounding time and was felt to negatively impact teaching and opportunities for academic discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Family presence on rounds has potential advantages for family and healthcare providers, but important challenges exist. Further studies are needed to understand how to best implement family presence on adult ICU rounds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.458
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.103 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it