Patient-Family-Nurse Interactions in the Trauma-Resuscitation Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy about the presence of patients' family members in the emergency department has centered on the trauma-resuscitation room. Little is known about interactions of patients' family members with the patients and with nurses or about the ramifications of the presence of patients' family members at the bedside. OBJECTIVES: To describe behavioral responses offamily members of patients and the interactions of thefamily members with nurses and the patient in the trauma room. METHODS: A secondary analysis was done of 193 videotapes of trauma room care. Of these, 88 tapes showed the presence of patients' family members, for a total of 42 hours. Qualitative ethology and a model of suffering as a scaffold were used to analyze verbal and nonverbal interactions between nurses, patients' family members, and patients. Behaviors and verbal interactions of patients and their families were coded as to persons who were enduring and persons who were emotionally suffering. Categories were described. RESULTS: Whether a patient's family members entered the trauma room depended on the patients condition, the patient's behavioral state, and the nature of the treatments. Categories of interactions were families learning to endure, patients failing to endure, family emotionally suffering and patient enduring, patient and family enduring, and resolution of enduring. The interaction style of the nurses involved was particular to each of these states. Two instances of inappropriate interactions occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses can use the Model of Suffering as a framework to assess behavioral and emotional states and to select appropriate strategies to comfort patients' family members.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".