Nursing patients with chronic critical illness and their families: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: chronic critical illness (CCI) is a complex syndrome with a high risk of dying in hospital. Intensive care unit nurses are well-positioned to lead conversations integrating palliative and end-of-life care, yet have reported limited involvement. AIM: To generate further understanding of nurses' experiences of patients with CCI and their families. DESIGN AND METHODS: This qualitative study followed Thorne's interpretive description methods. In 2012, 16 intensive care unit nurses from one academic hospital participated in interviews. RESULTS: Our primary theme was that of internal tension generated through participants' knowledge of patients' anticipated and protracted dying, while wanting to shield families from suffering. This internal tension resulted from responsibilities to preserve hope for patients and families, while at the same time wanting to provide them prognostic information. Participants experienced challenges of: (i) preserving family trust, (ii) determining when and how to engage families in discussions and (iii) providing possibilities of a 'good' death. A secondary theme described constraints to acting on their insights because of interprofessional team dynamics or limited communication, within the team and with the family. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Internal tension, as experienced by participants reflects the challenges of transition from acute to palliation and end-of-life care, made more complex in CCI, because of its poorly defined terminal stage. Nurses' ability to manage the complex process of supporting hope while gradually providing information to build family understanding of CCI highlights their central role in facilitating what and how prognostic information is given, while managing the emotional implications and family response. To better support nurses do this, we advocate for formal structures enabling nurses to participate in decision-making regarding timing of transitions using palliation and end-of-life care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".