Reported roles of care partners in a specialized weaning centre—perspectives of patients, care partners, and health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Care partners are individuals chosen by a person with an illness to support their care during hospitalization. Patients with persistent critical illness have longer than average critical care admission and often other conditions including dysphagia, communication vulnerability, severe physical deconditioning, the need for an artificial airway, and difficulty weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation. Family presence has been identified as important for patients experiencing persistent critical illness in specialized weaning centers. Despite this, the role of care partners in clinical settings for patients with persistent critical illness has not been fully characterized, particularly from the perspectives of patients, care partners, and health care providers. The aim of this study was to gain insights into the roles of care partners during persistent critical illness from the perspectives of patients, care partners, and health care providers. Methods: = 14) of adult patients with persistent critical illness from two specialized units in one community academic hospital in Toronto, Canada. Results: Participants across all groups described care partner roles that included physical, mental health, cognitive, social, and spiritual support of the patient, including the perceived role of safeguarding the multiple dimensions of care for the patient who is experiencing persistent critical care in specialized care settings. Discussion: The results of this study are being used to co-design, implement, and evaluate a sustainable care partner program that is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible to implement in clinical settings where the care of patients with persistent critical illness occurs. Reporting method: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".