Direct Observation of Family Engagement Practice in a Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe family engagement practices in a cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) and to explore their relationship with patient outcomes. Observations were conducted on 104 patients, with most (n = 61; 58%) having family members present. On average, 1.3 ± 0.6 family members were present per observation period per patient, spending 69% of the observation time at the bedside. The most common forms of family engagement included communication (n = 61; 100%), active family presence (n = 36; 59%), and direct contribution to care (n = 35; 57%). Patients with family present were 3 times less likely to be re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days compared to those without family present (5% vs 16%; P = .05). This study offers valuable insights through direct observations of family engagement practices in a CVICU setting, offering a foundational understanding of family engagement patterns and their associations with patient outcomes. These findings establish a basis for developing targeted interventions, policies, and training programs aimed at enhancing family engagement and improving outcomes for both patients and their families in critical care settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".