Family Presence During Resuscitation: Canadian Critical Care Nurses’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: As part of a larger online survey examining the practices and preferences of Canadian critical care nurses regarding family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) of adult family members, the purpose of the study was to explicate salient issues about the practice of FPDR identified by nurses who responded to the qualitative portion of the survey. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative. METHODS: As part of an online survey, participants were given the opportunity to provide qualitative comments about their personal or professional experiences with FPDR. Data analysis was completed using content analysis and constant comparison techniques. FINDINGS: Of the 944 nurses contacted electronically, 450 completed the survey, for a response rate of 48%. Of these, 242 opted to share qualitative comments regarding their experiences with FPDR. Four major themes emerged from the data: (a) perceived benefits for family members; (b) perceived risks for family members; (c) perceived benefits for healthcare providers; and (d) perceived risks for healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of FPDR impacts both family members and members of the resuscitation team. Nurses weigh these impacts when considering whether or not to bring family members to the bedside. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study provide information for practicing clinicians, educators, and administrators regarding the decision-making processes nurses use when considerations of bringing family members to the bedside during resuscitative events are evoked.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".