Family Member Experiences in Intensive Care Units Care: Insights From a Family Involvement Tool Implementation Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family involvement is widely considered an important part of patient care in the intensive care unit. From professional health care organizations, government, and hospital associations, there has been a cultural shift toward family presence as part of a wider commitment to patient-centered care. At the same time, the meaning and impact of family involvement in the intensive care unit setting remain opaque and under-studied. This study employed an ethnographic approach to better understand family involvement in practice and from the perspective of health care professionals and family members by studying an implementation trial of a family involvement tool in two intensive care units over 2 years. The findings revealed that an expanded and self-defined role for family members as carers in the intensive care unit challenged the current configuration of the nurse patient/family relationship and that family members were aware of these dynamics. While the intensive care unit implementation teams were both motivated to implement a novel way of facilitating family involvement, the processual, organizational, and contextual factors in the intensive care units largely determined the possibilities of its application. This suggests that interventions should address the specific context in which they are employed.
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 | 0.041 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".