“He is so much more than just his illness” using the Patient Dignity Question (PDQ) to elicit personhood and enhance dignity in the intensive care unit (ICU): A feasibility study examining family and healthcare professional feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the feasibility of a novel approach for eliciting personhood in ICUs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-method study in ICUs examining the Patient Dignity Question (PDQ): "What do I need to know about you/your family member as a person to take the best care of you/them as possible?". The PDQ was used with family members of critically ill ICU patients. Brief interview summaries were placed at the bedside for the healthcare team to read. Feedback was obtained from families and staff through surveys utilizing Likert scales (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree) and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Thirty-three family members reported PDQ participation was highly meaningful (Mean 4.8, SD 0.4), should be offered to other patients and families (Mean 4.8, SD 0.5), the PDQ information was accurate (Mean 4.9, SD 0.3), provided important information for the health care team (Mean 4.8, SD 0.4), and would impact their loved one's care (Mean 4.3, SD 0.8). Thirty-six ICU staff members reported the PDQ told them new information (Mean 4.5, SD 0.8), influenced their empathy (Mean 3.7 SD 1.1) and connectedness to the patient (Mean 3.9 SD 0.7). Despite this shift in tone of care, most felt it did not influence their physical care (Mean 2.8 SD 1.1). Qualitative themes from staff feedback include: 1) Knowing the whole person, tailoring care; 2) Increased empathy; and 3) Beyond the patient, impacting family interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Families and staff reported PDQs were highly valued, providing a novel way of improving dignity conserving care in ICUs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".