Parental Perspectives on Hospital Staff Members' Acts of Kindness and Commemoration After a Child's Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Acts of kindness and commemoration by staff members often follow the death of a patient. Acts include attending funerals, sending sympathy cards, sending cards on birthdays/anniversaries, telephoning/visiting family homes, and attending memorial services. This study explores the significance of these acts for bereaved parents. METHODS: Twelve parents whose children died in the ICU of a tertiary care pediatric hospital were interviewed, to explore their experiences of the death. Investigators reviewed transcripts and observational field notes. Multidisciplinary team triangulation was used to corroborate themes, with cross-case analysis. RESULTS: Three themes emerged regarding parental experiences of staff members' acts, ie, (1) parents placed great importance on the hospital's memorial service and on staff members' presence at the service; (2) parents found it difficult to return to the hospital after the child's death but all attended the memorial service, finding some closure in the return; and (3) parents appreciated receiving cards and greatly valued staff members' efforts to telephone/visit and to attend the funeral. Months later, parents remembered positively which staff members engaged in which activities. Conversely, parents expressed disappointment when staff members did not engage in these activities and/or were absent from memorial/funeral services. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to support families and to commemorate deceased children are appreciated by bereaved parents. Staff members' absences at commemorative events and a lack of supportive acts are noticed and regretted by families. Staff members and program administrators should attempt to arrange workloads to ensure meaningful contact between staff members and parents during the bereavement period.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".