The experiences of critically ill patients’ family members in adult intensive care unit multidisciplinary rounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family participation in intensive care unit (ICU) multidisciplinary rounds (MDR) is a recommended clinical practice guideline that recognizes the importance of supporting core elements of patient-and family-centered care including dignity and respect, information sharing, participation, and collaboration (Institute for Patient-and Family-Centered Care [IPFCC], 2021). Neonatal and pediatric critical care settings embraced family participation in multidisciplinary rounds in past decades, with adoption in adult ICU settings occurring more recently. Few studies have examined family participation in MDR in adult critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to examine and explore the experiences and perspectives of critically ill individuals’ family members with regards to MDR in the context of an adult ICU. Using a qualitative interpretive description approach, seven family members who participated in multidisciplinary rounds in an adult ICU in an urban western Canadian hospital were interviewed about their experiences and perceptions. Three themes were identified: (i) learning how to participate in MDR; (ii) feeling included and part of the team in MDR; and (iii) in the know -- the benefits of sharing information in MDR. Recommendations for practice include ensuring families are provided with information about the structure and processes of MDR and the types of questions to ask prior to attendance through the provision of written materials. Recommendations for research include future studies on the impact of MDR participation on patient, family, and team outcomes and the differences between in-person and virtual participation in MDR.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".