Registered nurses' involvement in advance care planning: an integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Even though registered nurses are uniquely positioned to have end-of-life conversations with their patients, there is limited engagement in such discussions between patients and health-care providers. Consequently, few patients are adequately prepared to make in-the-moment treatment decisions about goals of care. OBJECTIVES: The guiding question for this integrative review was what factors influence registered nurses' involvement in advance care planning (ACP) conversations with their patients in acute care settings? METHODS: Based on integrative review guidelines, databases from CINAHL, Medline, Ovid, and ProQuest were searched from 1990-2014, yielding nine articles. RESULTS: There were four patterns found in the literature: (1) Nurses' involvement in ACP, (2) Nurses' perceptions of their roles in ACP, (3) Barriers to ACP discussions, and (4) Facilitators of ACP discussions. DISCUSSION: Additional educational opportunities related to ACP are necessary to promote integration of ACP into daily nursing care. Further research should focus on exploring operant mechanisms shaping nurses' ACP practice in acute care settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".