Evaluation of the Family Liaison Officer role during the COVID-19 pandemic

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.18.21256801: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The current evaluation has a number of limitations. First, we were only able to engage five of the nine members of staff who had been in the FLO role. The four who were not represented may have not agreed to participate because they had a different perspective of the role that they were not willing to share so we could potentially have a biased view of the role. Similarly, we were only able to interview seven colleagues who worked alongside the FLOs so there could be other views not captured in these data. Secondly, this evaluation focused on the FLOs who were based in COVID-19 ward areas not in critical care or high dependency units. These FLOs were mostly medical backgrounds, who have a different style of communication to nurses and youth workers (19). The types of information and manner in which they delivered this could therefore have been different. Finally, the benefit to patients and families is from the professional perspective which does not necessarily reflect the experiences of patients or families. This is something that warrants further investigation. Despite these limitations, this evaluation indicated that there was benefit of providing a dedicated role to maintain and improve communication between healthcare teams and families during a crisis and is one of but a few emerging in response to COVID-19. While this is single centre evaluation, other organisations may recognise similar experiences so will be able to apply learning to their practices if the role is r...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.