Nursing Perspectives of Family-Centred Rounds in Critical Care Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In critical care settings, many patients cannot speak for themselves for various reasons, leaving the family to communicate and make decisions on their behalf. Since families assume the lead role in care planning and decision-making in these situations, family-centred care is of focus in this setting. Family-centred rounds are often seen as a component of family-centred care and generally consist of bedside work rounds where the patient and family share control in managing the plan and evaluating the process. Nurses have an important role in the execution of family-centred rounds and their active participation is crucial. There is a current lack of rigorous and consistent literature that strictly explores nursing perspectives of family-centred rounds in adult critical care areas. PurposeThe purpose of this research is to explore nursing perspectives of family-centred rounds in adult critical care units. This multisite research study will span four Southwestern Ontario Hospitals, including six critical care units, and is mainly descriptive in nature. An online survey will be distributed via email following ethics clearance to critical care nurses currently working in adult critical care units. ResultsThe final results of this research are still pending. Preliminary results will be available by the time of the conference. Conclusion: More research is needed in the area that explores nursing perspectives of family-centred rounding in adult critical care areas and the support of nurses is foundational to effective implementation. This research will provide information that can improve family-centred care, investigate facilitators and barriers to implementation and contribute to the development of evidence-based best practices for family-centred rounds.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".