Family member experiences with adult ICU multidisciplinary rounds: Transition from observers to participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Purpose: Family members’ participation in multidisciplinary rounds (MDR) is an accepted practice in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) with evidence this practice is occurring in adult ICUs. The purpose of this study was to explore family members’ experiences with participating in MDR in one Canadian adult ICU. Methods: Using qualitative interpretive description, family members of critically ill patients were interviewed about their MDR experiences. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Impressions from interviews were logged in field notes. Transcripts were coded, with data explored for patterns, similarities and differences, and relationships across interviews. Results: Seven family members agreed to participate. Three themes were identified: (i) finding your footing – learning how to participate in MDR; (ii) part of the team – feeling included and part of the team in MDR; and (iii) in the know – the benefits of sharing information in MDR. Participants spoke about their eagerness to participate, a need for support to understand how to participate, benefits of participation, and what they learned from and contributed to MDR. Conclusion: Families valued the opportunity to participate in MDR. Participation may be enhanced with team education, formal orientation for families to ICU and MDR, and the use of checklists and daily goals sheets in MDR. Keywords: multidisciplinary rounds, family, participation
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".