Improving the Quality of Family Engagement in the Intensive Care Unit Through Essential Care Partner Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p dir="ltr">In this department paper, we present insights from our research related to family engagement strategies in the intensive care unit (ICU) with the ultimate aim of improving quality of care and patient and family outcomes. Patient survivors of ICU admission and their family members have reported long-term physical, psychological, and cognitive disabilities referred to as post intensive care syndrome (PICS and PICS-F, respectively). Meaningful engagement and empowerment of family, friends, and other key informal carers (family hereafter) in the ICU has been long suggested as a part of the ABCDEF bundle of evidence-based guidelines to improve quality of family-centered care and for the prevention of PICS and PICS-F (Table). Meaningful engagement and empowerment of family in the ICU can have positive health impacts on family. A recent systematic review of randomized-controlled trials of family-centered interventions in the ICU, for example, reported positive outcomes for patients such as anxiety, satisfaction, post-traumatic stress symptoms, depression, and health-related quality of life. Another systematic review examining the effectiveness of family-centered interventions on family caregivers, though not specific to ICU, also reported improvements in caregiver burden, quality of life, stress, and depression for all involved.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".