Lived Experience of the Intensive Care Unit for Patients Who Experienced Delirium
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common occurrence for patients in the intensive care unit and can have a profound and lasting impact on them. Few studies describe the experience of intensive care patients who have had delirium. OBJECTIVE: To understand the lived experience of intensive care for critically ill patients who experienced delirium. METHODS: The study participants consisted of 7 men and 3 women, 46 to 70 years old, who had delirium according to the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit. The van Manen method of hermeneutic phenomenology was used, and data collection entailed audio recorded semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Four themes were detected: "I can't remember," "Wanting to make a connection," "Trying to get it straight," and "Fear and safety concerns." CONCLUSION: Nurses working in intensive care units need to assess patients for delirium, assess the mental status of patients who have delirium, and help patients and patients' families learn about and deal with the psychological effects of the intensive care unit experience.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it