Caregiver Accompaniment in Pediatric Critical Care Transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Family-centered care is a critical component of critical care interfacility and medical retrieval transport (MRT) services. These services provide a critical bridge for a physiologically and psychologically unique population often best served in specialized, tertiary centers. Caregivers often wish to accompany patients during MRT. However, there is currently little research on the impact of caregiver accompaniment on MRT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to determine: 1) What are caregiver attitudes to accompanied and unaccompanied MRT? 2) What are healthcare provider attitudes to caregiver presence? 3) What are patient attitudes to caregiver presence? and 4) Are there differences in patient outcome depending on caregiver presence? DATA SOURCES: Data sources are MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: Studies with a focus on patient, caregiver, or family-oriented care practices in MRT. Reviewed articles were not restricted unless they discussed neonatal transport, palliative transport, were non-English, or were conference proceedings. DATA EXTRACTION: We screened 1373 articles, with 45 full-text articles reviewed. After removal of duplicates and abstract-only results, 25 articles remained. Three additional articles were found in references of reviewed articles. RESULTS: Articles generally supported caregiver presence on MRT, with caregivers and providers in agreement. However, for many services, space was a limiting factor controlling when caregivers could travel. LIMITATIONS: There is a paucity of literature on this topic, and studies were entirely from English-speaking countries. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers and healthcare providers largely prefer caregiver accompaniment on MRT services. There is little data on patient perspectives and transport-related adverse events affecting patient 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".