Health care providers' perceptions of family presence during pediatric resuscitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) team strives to achieve the family-centred care philosophy consistent with the organization's vision and mission. In 2006, a team of nurses began exploration of the evidence on family presence during pediatric resuscitation with the primary goal to integrate this knowledge into practice. From the literature search, it was apparent there was limited published research, especially in a Canadian pediatric setting. This led to a staged research project to explore and, subsequently, integrate family presence during resuscitation into the culture. OBJECTIVES: 1) To explore health care providers' perceptions of family presence during pediatric resuscitation (2007), 2) Based on these findings, develop and integrate a guideline to best support this practice (2008-2009), and 3) Re-examine health care providers' perceptions post guideline implementation (2010). METHODOLOGY: Following approval from the University of Manitoba nursing and education ethics review board and the site research coordinating committee, survey methodology was used to gather data at baseline (2007) and again post implementation (2010). Data were analyzed independently at each time interval and then in comparison to explore the quantitative and qualitative responses. FINDINGS: In 2007, data demonstrated sufficient support to move this project forward. In addition, the survey indentified facilitators and barriers to assist in both the development of an evidence-based guideline and the successful integration into practice. In 2010, the post-implementation survey supported the evidenced-based practice guideline had achieved its goal of integration into practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".