Using Reflective Nursing Practice to Improve Care of Women With Congenital Heart Disease Considering Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief This article examines the issue of congenital heart disease (CHD) in women, specifically women who are considering pregnancy. Some of the authors' experiences with women with CHD are described, and a reflective approach to clinical practice is used to gain a greater understanding of the women's perspective. Women with CHD need to balance general lifespan developmental tasks with issues specific to their CHD, such as changes in functional abilities or the possibility of a shortened life expectancy. In women with CHD, physiological, psychological, and family issues need to be considered when they are contemplating pregnancy. As women with CHD move through this debate, nurses may play a key role in assisting them in their decision-making process by exploring issues related to pregnancy and CHD. This exercise in reflective nursing practice allowed us to review the literature, gain new knowledge from our patients, use that knowledge to help other patients, and thoughtfully consider what still needs to be discovered in the care of reproductive-aged women with CHD. The subject of pregnancy contemplation in women with CHD in requires systematic research. Do you understand reflective nursing practice? When faced with the care of women considering pregnancy who had CHD, these nurses could find no evidence in the literature. They proceeded scientifically, however, to learn all they could about how to care for these women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".