COPD‐intuition or template: nurses’ stories of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: STUDY RATIONAL: A number of nurse-researchers have examined the experience of dyspnoea reduction during non-acute phases of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, nurses working on in-patient hospital units are frequently required to care for individuals suffering from acute exacerbations of their disease (AECOPD). These critically ill individuals present at health care institutions incapacitated by severe shortness of breath/dyspnoea that is frequently refractory to treatment. To date, little is known about the nurses' understanding of the care they provide for individuals hospitalized because of these acute episodes of their chronic illness. STUDY OBJECTIVES: The research project was undertaken, in part, to develop an understanding of nurses' experience of caregiving for individuals hospitalized for in-patient care during an AECOPD. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN: This focused ethnographic narrative examined the caregiving stories of 10 nurse caregivers. The 10 nurse caregivers were interviewed while caring for a patient and their family during an experience of an AECOPD characterized by incapacitating breathlessness. RESULTS: The nurse caregivers told a number of caregiving stories that illustrated a common care template that appears to be based on intuition or pattern recognition focusing on anxiety sometimes to the exclusion of dyspnoea. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of these stories emphasized the need to facilitate nurses individualization of standard templates. More importantly, this analysis illustrated the critical need to develop strategies to facilitate the reshaping of inaccurate templates in the presence of new knowledge.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".