Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background:Virtual care was rapidly integrated into pediatric health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. While virtual care offers many benefits, it is necessary to better understand the experiences of those who receive, deliver, and coordinate virtual care in order to support sustainable, high-quality, and patient-centered health care. To date, methods implemented to evaluate users’ experiences of virtual care have been highly variable, making comparison and data synthesis difficult.Objective:This study aims to describe evaluation strategies currently used to understand personal experiences with pediatric virtual care in Canada.Methods:In this mixed methods environmental scan, we first distributed a web-based questionnaire to clinical, research, and operational leaders delivering and evaluating pediatric virtual care in Canada. The questionnaire collected information about how experiences with virtual care have been or are currently being evaluated and whether these evaluations included the perspectives of children or youth, families, providers, or support staff. Second, respondents were asked to share the questions they used in their evaluations, and a content analysis was performed to identify common question categories. Third, we conducted semistructured interviews to further explore our respondents’ evaluation experiences across 4 domains—evaluation approaches, distribution methods, response rates, and lessons learned—and interest in a core set of questions for future evaluations.Results:There were 72 respondents to the web-based questionnaire; among those who had conducted an evaluation, we identified 15 unique evaluations, and 14 of those provided a copy of the tools used to evaluate virtual care. These evaluations measured the virtual care experiences of parents or caregivers (n=15, 100%), children or youth (n=11, 73%), health care providers (n=11, 73%), and support staff (n=4, 27%). The most common data collection method used was electronic questionnaires distributed by email. Two respondents used validated tools; the remainder modified existing tools or developed new tools. Content analysis of the 14 submitted questionnaires revealed that the most common questions were about overall participant satisfaction, the comparison of virtual care to in-person care, and whether participants would choose virtual care options in the future. Interview findings indicate respondents frequently relied on methods used by peers and that a standardized, core set of questions to evaluate experiences with virtual care would be helpful to improve evaluation practices and support pediatric health care delivery.Conclusions:At our institution and elsewhere in Canada, experiences with pediatric virtual care have been evaluated using a variety of methods. A more consistent evaluation approach using standardized tools may enable more regular comparisons of experiences with virtual care and the synthesis of findings across health care settings. In turn, this may better inform our approach to virtual care, improve its integration into health systems, and facilitate sustainable, high-quality, patient-centered care.

Background Family-centered rounds (FCR) are fundamental to pediatric inpatient care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to design and implement a virtual family-centered rounds (vFCR) process that allowed continuation of inpatient rounds while following physical distancing guidelines and preserving personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods A multidisciplinary team developed the vFCR process using a participatory design approach. From April through July 2020, quality improvement methods were used to iteratively evaluate and improve the process. Outcome measures included satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and perceived usefulness of vFCR. Data were collected via questionnaire distributed to patients, families, staff and medical staff, and analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Virtual auditors monitored time per patient round and transition time between patients as balancing measures. Results Seventy-four percent (51/69) of health care providers surveyed and 79% (26/33) of patients and families were satisfied or very satisfied with vFCR. Eighty eight percent (61/69) of health care providers and 88% (29/33) of patients and families felt vFCR were useful. Audits revealed an average vFCR duration of 8.4 min (SD = 3.9) for a single patient round and transition time between patients averaged 2.9 min (SD = 2.6). Conclusion Virtual family-centered rounds are an acceptable alternative to in-person FCR in a pandemic scenario, yielding high levels of stakeholder satisfaction and support. We believe vFCR are a useful method to support inpatient rounds, physical distancing, and preservation of PPE that may also be valuable beyond the pandemic. A rigorous process evaluation of vFCR is underway.

Background The use of virtual care has increased dramatically in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, yet evidence is lacking regarding the impact of virtual care on patient outcomes, particularly in pediatrics. A standardized evaluation approach is required to support the integration of virtual care into pediatric health care delivery programs. The objective of this work was to develop a comprehensive and structured framework for pediatric virtual care evaluation. This framework is intended to engage and guide care providers, health centres, and stakeholders towards the development of a standardized approach to the evaluation of pediatric virtual care. Methods We brought together a diverse multidisciplinary team, including pediatric clinicians, researchers, digital health leads and analysts, program leaders, a human factors engineer, a family advisor and our manager of health equity and diversity. The team reviewed the literature, including published evaluation frameworks, and used a consensus-based method to develop a virtual care evaluation framework applicable to a broad spectrum of pediatric virtual care programs. We used an iterative process to develop framework components, including domains and sub-domains, examples of evaluation questions, measures, and data sources. Team members met repeatedly over seven months to generate and provide feedback on all components of the framework, making revision as needed until consensus was reached. The framework was then applied to an existing virtual care program. Results The resulting framework includes four domains (health outcomes, health delivery, individual experience, and program implementation) and 19 sub-domains designed to support the development and evaluation of pediatric virtual care programs. We also developed guidance on how to use the framework and illustrate its utility by applying it to an existing pediatric virtual care program. Conclusions This virtual care evaluation framework expands on previously developed frameworks by providing additional detail and a structure that supports practical application. It can be used to evaluate a wide range of pediatric virtual care programs in a standardized manner. Use of this comprehensive yet easy to use evaluation framework will inform appropriate implementation and integration of virtual care into routine practice and support its sustainability and continuous improvement.

Abstract Background Virtual care has seen exponential growth since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the evaluation of virtual care tools and services is lacking, particularly in the inpatient setting. In April 2020, we virtualized our in-person family-centered rounds (FCR) process and demonstrated the ability to perform virtual family-centered rounds (vFCR). In this study, we evaluate vFCR against the accepted standard of in-person FCR to ensure high quality care is maintained and encourage adoption by health care providers, administrators, patients and caregivers. Objectives The objective of this study is to compare vFCR to established core components and timing for in-person FCR. Perceptions of overall satisfaction, safety and technology usability were also explored. Design/Methods This is a mixed methods process evaluation of vFCR. Data collection was through virtual and in-person observation and post-vFCR survey of participants. Virtual observations focused on timing and adherence to core components of FCR, while in-person naturalistic observations focused on technology interaction and usability. Observation data underwent quantitative and content analysis. Data from post-vFCR questionnaires were subject to descriptive statistical analysis and content analysis of free-text responses. Results Sixty-two vFCR were observed virtually and 35 vFCR were observed in-person. Adherence to the core components of FCR during vFCR was variable (Table 1). Mean duration of a single patient round was 8.44 ± 4.93 minutes, with a mean transition time between patients of 3.96 ± 2.96 minutes. One hundred and four surveys were completed (76% response rate), 42 by patients and caregivers and 62 by members of the interdisciplinary medical team. The majority (93%) of respondents surveyed were satisfied or very satisfied with vFCR, and 67% felt it was important or very important to do FCR virtually during the pandemic to keep people safer. Importantly, vFCR was perceived by 96% of medical team members as supporting shared decision making with patients and caregivers, and 78% of patients/caregivers felt like a valued partner in their (child’s) care. Virtual family-centered rounds technology was perceived as easy or very easy to use by 95% of respondents. Additional positive and negative comments were submitted by 38% of respondents about their experience with vFCR (Figure 1). Conclusion Virtual family-centered rounds afford adherence to the core components of family-centered rounds. Satisfaction with vFCR and perceived usability of vFCR technology were both highly rated. Respondents also felt vFCR were important for safety during the pandemic. Rounds duration and transition times between patients were seen as opportunities for improvement. Observation and questionnaire data suggest the efficiency and quality of vFCR may be optimized through routine training on the rounding process and technology, as well as recognition of family-centered rounds as a component of inpatient pediatric care that should be prioritized.

Effective approaches are needed to conserve the planet's remaining wildlife and wilderness landscapes, especially concerning global biodiversity conservation targets. Here, we present a new software system called EarthRanger: an open‐source platform built to help monitor, research and manage ecosystems. EarthRanger consists of seven main components (Core Server, API, Storage, Gundi, Web App, Mobile App, Ecoscope) that provide functionality for data (i) aggregation & collection, (ii) storage & management, (iii) real‐time and post hoc analysis, (iv) visualisation and (v) dissemination. The mobile application provides field‐based data recording and visualisation tools. EarthRanger may be deployed for single project use or can aggregate across multiple geographies as a centralised hub. EarthRanger can be used to collect standardised tracking data (e.g. from wildlife collars, vehicles and ranger patrols) and configurable event information (e.g. a singular recording with associated user‐defined attribute information such as a wildlife sighting or encounter with a poacher). Since development began in 2015, the platform has (at the time of writing) been deployed at over 500 sites across 70 countries and with myriad configurations and objectives. EarthRanger has improved the ability to monitor data feeds and manage conservation‐related operations in real time. For instance, the deployment of EarthRanger by African Parks has led to the removal of over 50,000 snares, steady population growth of key species of concern and near cessation of poaching. In Liwonde's protected area, enhanced mitigation efforts supported by EarthRanger reduced the number of deaths from wildlife conflict by more than 91%. EarthRanger is also providing a platform to enhance standardisation, aggregation, transfer and long‐term storage of ecological information and promote collaboration between groups conducting protected area management and ecology and biodiversity research.

Predator–prey interactions are a fundamental aspect of ecology that has generated sustained research interests. Progress in the field stems from a diverse range of approaches, from highly controlled yet simplified mathematical and agent‐based models, to grounded but data‐limited field studies. As a compromise between mathematical and observation‐oriented methods, we introduce an original approach based on an outdoor game. In this game, biologged human players follow simple rules to impersonate predators and prey in a natural landscape augmented with synthetic resource patches and refuges. We investigated the behaviour, movement, functional response and spatial organization of over 25 players simultaneously monitored during nine simulations to determine whether the game could replicate realistic predator–prey dynamics. Results derived from our real‐life simulations were consistent with ecological patterns expected in natural systems. We found that (a) predator and prey movements were driven by risk and reward trade‐offs, (b) predators took advantage of linear features to travel at higher speed, making these areas risky for prey, (c) prey had nonlinear and risk‐sensitive functional responses and (d) consumer–resource interactions were spatially modular and defined by players' movement rates and landscape features. Moreover, the comprehensive dataset generated through the game allowed for the exploration of phenomena that are challenging to study in natural settings, such as spatial memory and the influence of satiety on resource acquisition rates. The approach offers a simple, computationally accessible and genuinely amusing way to explore the complex ramifications of predator–prey interactions and test otherwise data‐deficient hypotheses. The strength and originality of the method lies in the use of living agents—players—making decisions in a real‐world setting. This aspect alleviates the computational and empirical burden of defining and estimating decision‐related parameters needed to build simulators, while generating extensive datasets in a flexible experimental framework that is generally out of reach for empirical studies. It also offers immersive insights into predator–prey interactions, making it an engaging pedagogical tool that encourages creative thinking. The numerous possible scenarios that can be explored are only constrained by the investigator's creativity in adapting game rules and the players' desire to win.

The Hubble Space Telescope’s Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) instrument, comprised of two detectors, UVIS (Ultraviolet-Visible) and IR (Infrared), has been acquiring ~ 50-100 images daily since its installation in 2009. The WFC3 Quicklook project provides a means for instrument analysts to store, calibrate, monitor, and interact with these data through the various Quicklook systems: (1) a ~ 175 TB filesystem, which stores the entire WFC3 archive on disk, (2) a MySQL database, which stores image header data, (3) a Python-based automation platform, which currently executes 22 unique calibration/monitoring scripts, (4) a Python-based code library, which provides system functionality such as logging, downloading tools, database connection objects, and filesystem management, and (5) a Python/Flask-based web interface to the Quicklook system. The Quicklook project has enabled large-scale WFC3 analyses and calibrations, such as the monitoring of the health and stability of the WFC3 instrument, the measurement of ~ 20 million WFC3/UVIS Point Spread Functions (PSFs), the creation of WFC3/IR persistence calibration products, and many others.

Predicting animal space use could greatly improve our understanding and forecasting of ecological processes. Despite growing interest, the development of predictive space use models amenable to the integration of spatial processes into ecological frameworks have yet to reach their full potential. Using high-resolution tracking data collected at 4-minute intervals from 26 Arctic foxes over five years, we developed a predictive space use model based on a step-selection approach. We assessed fine-scale habitat selection in relation to prey distribution, landscape features, and ecological constraints such as central place foraging and territoriality. We then used these results to build an agent-based model simulating fox space use and evaluated its ability to reproduce observed space use patterns. Step-selection analyses confirmed that fox movements were driven by habitat type, goose nest density, distance to den, and avoidance of distance to the home range boundary. Agent-based simulations closely matched empirical tracking data and accurately forecasted fox space use, even for individuals excluded from model parameterization. By developing a predictive model of predator space-use, our study provides a foundation for incorporating additional components of the predation sequence and contributes to more spatially informed approaches in predator-prey ecology.