Family presence during resuscitation: a survey of Canadian critical care nurses' practices and perceptions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The practice of allowing family members to be present at the bedside during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a controversial one and represents a paradigm shift among health care providers. To date, no research has examined this issue from the perspective of Canadian critical care nurses. OBJECTIVES: This research was undertaken to identify the practices and preferences of Canadian critical care nurses regarding family presence during resuscitation (FPDR), the extent to which formal FPDR policies exist in hospitals, and the level of awareness among members of the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses (CACCN) regarding CACCN's position statement on FPDR. A secondary objective was to compare responses from Canadian critical care nurses to the responses of American critical care and ER nurses in a 2003 survey. METHODS: An 18-item online survey was sent to 944 members of CACCN. RESULTS: The response rate was 47.7% (n = 450). The majority of respondents (92%) supported the option of FPDR in critical care; slightly more than their U.S. counterparts (76%). Within the last year, although fewer Canadian nurses (18.5%) compared with American nurses (31%) had been asked by family members to be brought to the bedside during CPR, the majority of both Canadian nurses (65%) and American nurses (57%) reported they had either taken a family member to the bedside, or would do so if the opportunity arose. Only 8% of Canadian respondents reported that written guidelines/policies for FPDR were available in their hospital (5% for U.S. survey respondents). Half (49.8%) of the respondents were aware that CACCN had a position statement on FPDR. CONCLUSION: Although guidelines or policies for FPDR are not available in most hospitals where respondents worked, the majority of critical care nurses support FPDR and either had taken or would be willing to take family members to the bedside during CPR. The willingness of nurses in critical care to support FPDR suggests the need for more formal policies in hospitals and the development of algorithms to facilitate this process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".