PP521 Topic: AS24–Resuscitation, Stabilization & Transport: Rapid Response Teams/ECMO Transport/Air Transport/Telemedicine/Other: CAN WE PRIORITIZE FAMILY CENTERED CARE DURING PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE TRANSPORT? A SINGLE CANADIAN CENTER’S EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: Family centered care is defined as a mutually beneficial partnership among healthcare providers, patients, and families. Pediatric Critical Care transport services optimize patient outcomes by providing specialized care to critically ill and injured patients. Despite the presence of caregivers being an important component of family-centered care, there are no standards for accompaniment on transport. The goal of this quality assessment is to determine the rate of transports where caregivers accompany a pediatric critical care transport team, and reasons for the caregiver’s absence. The specialized pediatric transport team is located at the Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, Canada. The team utilizes ground and air vehicles, reaching over 400 km away from the tertiary hospital. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted between April 1st, 2022, and March 31st, 2023. Results: During this period, the team completed 303 pediatric transports, 58.4% (177/303) by ground ambulance, and 41.6% (126/303) by fixed wing or rotary vehicles. In 18.2% (55/303) of transports, a caregiver’s presence was not supported, while in 4.0% (12/303) of transports a caregiver was absent due to patient acuity. Conclusions: The unique work environment of a transport team poses challenges to family centered care. We found the main barriers to caregiver’s presence were limited space, either because of the team’s size, or the limited space in the vehicle. When space was available, the patient’s acuity was the main reason for the team not to allow caregivers to accompany the child. Caregivers who chose not to come mostly preferred to drive themselves. Keywords: Care Giver Presence, family centered care, intensive care unit, Transport Team
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.008 |
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".