ArticleIntensive care medicine2009
Relationships, trust, decision-making and quality of care in a paediatric intensive care unit.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The future of training in intensive care medicine: A European perspective.Journal of intensive medicine · 2023Article
- Final responsibility for treatment choice: the proper role of medical doctors?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2011Article
- Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2009. Part III: mechanical ventilation, acute lung injury and respiratory distress syndrome, pediatrics, ethics, and miscellanea.Intensive care medicine · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the care-giving practices of health-care practitioners in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) through their qualitative insights, reflections and experience in participatory action research. DESIGN AND
methodsQualitative research in the form of 'participatory action research' was used to gather data from three sources within the unit: focus groups within disciplines, observations within the PICU, and semi-structured interviews. All staff members were active collaborators and equal stakeholders in the decision-making process, research and feedback.
settingThe paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of the Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital (RCWMCH).
participantsAll staff members from various disciplines working in the PICU.
resultsStaff members described problems with respect to relationships, trust and decision-making within care-giving practices.
conclusionThe study qualitatively describes how poor communication amongst staff members in respect of relationships and decision-making impacted on trust and how this tended to compromise care-giving practices in the PICU. The data suggested that this was more evident in informal rather than formal clinical decision-making procedures. The strength of the study was that the participatory action design in the research allowed staff members to address the very dynamics that they themselves cited as problematic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19554306What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.