New Zealand nurses perceptions of caring for patients with influenza A (H1N1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of the highly specialized nurses who provided extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy for the mostly young and critically ill patients during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. BACKGROUND: The 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus caused a global pandemic and also affected New Zealand during that winter. Nine H1N1-infected adult patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome were admitted into an intensive care unit of a large urban hospital for rescue extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy. DESIGN: The study used a two-phase mix methods study design. METHODS: Phase 1 of the study involved five nurses attending a focus group interview to collect their views of the challenges and issues of caring for these patients. The results of the focus group were used to formulate the phase 2 survey. In total, 25 eligible nurses were invited to complete an anonymous survey; 18 completed and returned surveys giving a 72% response rate. RESULTS: The survey identified issues including the acuity and high mortality rate of those affected, nurses working in an isolated environment because of infection control requirements, limited support and being asked to work extra shifts. CONCLUSION: Despite these challenges, the nurses felt positive about their experience of caring for the H1N1 patients, and felt the experience advanced their skills and improved job satisfaction. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: For future pandemics, this study identified the need for all staff to have a basic understanding of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; strengthen inter-professional collaboration and communication; provision for more support and recognition of these highly specialized nurses, along with providing regular pandemic updates and offering counselling services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".