Trauma and tribulation: the experiences and attitudes of operating room nurses working with organ donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past two decades, significant medical advances have resulted in remarkable success and survival rates for organ recipients. However, the rates of donation have not kept pace with the demand, resulting in a critical shortage of available healthy organs. It has been suggested that the attitudes of medical personnel towards organ retrieval is a key success factor in improving organ donation. Yet there is evidence that those closest to the process of procurement are the most negative. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the attitudes towards organ donation of operating room nurses and their experiences of participating in the procurement of organs for transplant, in order to unravel factors that contribute to their attitudes. METHODS: This study relied upon in-depth qualitative interviews with 14 operating room nurses who participated in organ procurement in a large urban trauma centre. RESULTS: The results of this study suggest that the process of organ procurement is highly stressful and raises many concerns for operating room nurses. Factors, which added to participants' distress, include organizational factors such as strained relationships within surgical teams, concerns about the dignity of the patient and the well-being of the family and exposure to death and trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences of nurses participating in surgical removal of organs for transplantation resulted in personal feelings of distress and negative attitudes to the issue of organ donation which may be transmitted to others and undermine organ procurement efforts. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The concerns of these vital members of the organ procurement team should be heeded and actions taken to reduce their distress and improve their attitudes towards donation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".