Experiences of Parental Presence in the Induction of Anesthesia in a Canadian Tertiary Pediatric Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Parental presence at induction of anesthesia remains controversial and has been reported to provide mixed results. As such, parental presence at induction of anesthesia is not practiced routinely everywhere. There are currently limited data describing the practice of parental presence at induction of anesthesia or the experiences and perceptions of parents in Canada. Objectives We sought to investigate (1) the frequency of parental presence at induction of anesthesia and (2) the experiences and perceptions of parents accompanying their child into the operating room compared to those who did not at a tertiary Canadian pediatric hospital. Methods Institutional quality improvement approval was obtained. This study was a cross-sectional survey. Parents waiting in the parent surgical waiting room during the procedure were invited to complete a web-based survey. Consent was implied via completing the survey. The cross-sectional survey elicited the prevalence of parental presence during induction of anesthesia as well as their experience and perceptions. We also investigated the parents' preferences for preoperative education. Results Of the 448 parents approached, 403 completed the survey between May and June 2017. Sixty-eight (16.9% [13.4-20.9]) parents accompanied their child into the operating room (parental presence at induction of anesthesia), while 335/403 (83.1% [79.1-86.7]) did not (no-parental presence at induction of anesthesia). Reasons for not accompanying their child into the operating room included "not being aware they could" (158/335, 47.2% [41.9-52.5]), "I didn't think my child needed me" (107/335, 31.9% [27.2-37.1]), "my child was coping well" (46/335, 13.4% [10.5-17.8]), and "I was anxious" (47/335, 14.0% [10.7-18.2]). Most of the parents in the parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort (66/67, 98.5% [95.6-101.2]) reported that they believed their child benefited/would have benefited from their presence during induction of anesthesia compared to those in the no-parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort (137/335, 40.9% [35.8-46.2]), P < 0.001. Overall, 51/335 (14.7%) parents in the no-parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort and 3/67 (4.5%) of those in the parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort felt that offering parental presence at induction of anesthesia should depend on factors including child's age as well as the level of coping and anxiety. More patients in the no-parental presence at induction of anesthesia cohort felt that parental presence at induction of anesthesia should also depend on the child's age and whether the child was coping. Parents felt that face-to-face discussions with clinicians are most effective for discussing future parental presence at induction of anesthesia. Conclusions We have shown that most parents at our institution do not undergo parental presence at induction of anesthesia and are for the most part comfortable with their child going unaccompanied into the operating room. Administrators and clinicians seeking to implement parental presence policies should consider navigating parental presence at induction of anesthesia with evidence-based approaches tailored to each parent and their child.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".