Lived Experiences of Iranian Nurses Caring for Brain Death Organ Donor Patients: Caring as “Halo of Ambiguity and Doubt”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brain death is a concept in which its criteria have been expressed as documentations in Harvard Committee of Brain Death. The various perceptions of caregiver nurses for brain death patients may have effect on the chance of converting potential donors into actual organ donors. OBJECTIVE: The present study has been conducted in order to perceive the experiences of nurses in care-giving to the brain death of organ donor patients. METHODS: This qualitative study was carried out by means of Heidegger's hermeneutic phenomenology. Eight nurses who have been working in ICU were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews were recorded bya tape-recorder and the given texts were transcribed and the analyses were done by Van-Mannen methodology and (thematic) analysis. RESULTS: One of the foremost themes extracted from this study included 'Halo of ambiguity and doubt' that comprised of two sub-themes of 'having unreasonable hope' and 'Conservative acceptance of brain death'. The unreasonable hope included lack of trust (uncertainty) in diagnosis and verification of brain death, passing through denial wall, and avoidance from explicit and direct disclosure of brain death in patients' family. In this investigation, the nurses were involved in a type of ambiguity and doubt in care-giving to the potentially brain death of organ donor patients, which were also evident in their interaction with patients' family and for this reason, they did not definitely announce the brain death and so far they hoped for treatment of the given patient. Such confusion and hesitance both caused annoyance of nurses and strengthening the denial of patients' family to be exposed to death. CONCLUSION: The results of this study reveal the fundamental perceived care-giving of brain death in organ donor patients and led to developing some strategies to improve care-giving and achievement in donation of the given organ and necessity for presentation of educational and supportive services for nurses might become more evident than ever.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".