MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077386795 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.2.64

The covenantal or communal values of surgeons and intensivists influenced end-of-life care in 3 intensive care units

2004· letter· en· W2077386795 on OpenAlexaff
David Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensive care unitMedicineIntensive careHealth professionalsHealth careNursingFamily medicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cassell J, Buchman TG, Streat S, et al . Surgeons, intensivists, and the covenant of care: administrative models and values affecting care at the end of life—Updated. Crit Care Med 2003;31:1551–9.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q How does end-of-life care differ in intensive care units (ICUs) that use different administrative models? Ethnographic observation. Surgical ICUs in St Louis, Missouri and San Antonio, Texas, and a medical-surgical ICU in Auckland, New Zealand. Approximately 600 physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, patients, family members, and friends. The first author spent 18 months in the ICU in Missouri; 3 weeks in the ICU in Texas; and 10 weeks in the ICU in New Zealand. Her participation varied by site and included observation of rounds, patient care, and end-of-life discussions with families, as well as interviewing health professionals. A semi-closed unit with conflicting ethics (Missouri). On this unit, surgeons and intensivists shared responsibility for patient care, but conceptualised this responsibility quite differently. Surgeons appeared to act based on a covenantal ethic, which focused on … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCritical%2Bcare%2Bmedicine%26rft.stitle%253DCrit%2BCare%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DCassell%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D31%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D1551%26rft.epage%253D1557%26rft.atitle%253DSurgeons%252C%2Bintensivists%252C%2Band%2Bthe%2Bcovenant%2Bof%2Bcare%253A%2Badministrative%2Bmodels%2Band%2Bvalues%2Baffecting%2Bcare%2Bat%2Bthe%2Bend%2Bof%2Blife--Updated.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1097%252F00003246-200305000-00039%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12771632%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00003246-200305000-00039&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12771632&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F2%2F64.1.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182981300039&link_type=ISI

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207