Pediatric Delirium Educational Tool Development With Intensive Care Unit Clinicians and Caregivers in Canada: Focus Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pediatric intensive care unit (PICU)-associated delirium contributes to a decline in postdischarge quality of life, with worse outcomes for individuals with delayed identification. As delirium screening rates remain low within PICUs, caregivers may be able to assist with early detection, for which they need more education, as awareness of pediatric delirium among caregivers remains limited. Objective: This study aimed to develop an educational tool for caregivers to identify potential delirium symptoms during their child's PICU stay, educate them on how to best support their child if they experience delirium, and guide them to relevant family resources. Methods: Web-based focus groups were conducted at a tertiary pediatric hospital with expected end users of the tool (ie, PICU health care professionals and caregivers of children with an expected PICU length of stay of over 48 h) to identify potential educational information for inclusion in a family resource guide and to identify strategies for effective implementation. Data were analyzed thematically to generate requirements to inform prototype development. Participants then provided critical feedback on the initial prototype, which guided the final design. Results: In all, 24 participants (18 health care professionals and 6 caregivers) attended 7 focus groups. Participants identified five informational sections for inclusion: (1) delirium definition, (2) key features of delirium (signs and symptoms), (3) postdischarge outcomes associated with delirium, (4) tips to inform family-centered care, and (5) education or supportive resources. Participants identified seven design requirements: information should (1) be presented in an order that resembles the structure of the clinical discussion around delirium; (2) increase accessibility, recall, and preparedness by providing multiple formats; (3) aim to reduce stress by implementing positive framing; (4) minimize cognitive load to ensure adequate information processing; (5) provide supplemental electronic resources via QR codes; (6) emphasize collaboration between caregivers and the health care team; and (7) use prompting questions to act as a call to action for caregivers. Conclusions: Key design requirements derived from end-user feedback were established and guided the development of a novel pediatric delirium education tool. Implementing this tool into regular practice has the potential to reduce distress and assist in the early recognition and treatment of delirium in the PICU domain. Future evaluation of its clinical utility is necessary.
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 | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".