Family Participation in Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit Rounds: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Observational studies have shown an association between family participation in intensive care unit (ICU) rounds and better family-centered outcomes. However, there is a lack of evidence from randomized studies on the impact of family participation in ICU rounds. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized trial for family participation in ICU rounds and to obtain preliminary estimates of effect to inform a future effectiveness trial. Methods Family members of patients in the cardiovascular ICU at an academic tertiary care hospital were randomized to intervention (participation in rounds) or usual care. Following ICU discharge, family member participants completed the family satisfaction (FS-ICU) questionnaire. Feasibility metrics were recruitment (≥10 participants/month), uptake (≥80%), and follow-up (≥80%). Effectiveness was measured by between group differences in FS-ICU score at follow-up. Results There were 27 participants recruited over 8 weeks. 44% (27/61) of family members approached agreed to participate. Non-participation was most commonly due to lack of interest (N=20; 64%). All family members randomized to the intervention (N=16) were present for rounds (100% uptake). Follow-up data were available for 23 participants (85%). Family members who participated in rounds had higher satisfaction with care compared to the usual care group (87.3 vs 74.7, P=0.03, respectively). Conclusion Family participation in cardiovascular ICU rounds is feasible and effective at improving family satisfaction. Our findings will inform the design of a planned larger multicenter study to evaluate the effectiveness of family participation in ICU rounds to improve family-centered outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".