Withdrawal of Life Support: How the Family Feels, and Why
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
The objectives of this study were to develop an instrument to assess the satisfaction of family members with withdrawal of life support (WLS), and to determine which factors are associated with greater levels of satisfaction. To do this, we developed a self-administered questionnaire that was sent to the next-of-kin of intensive care unit (ICU) patients dying following WLS. Over a six-month period, 69 patients died following WLS in the ICU. Three letters were returned "address unknown", 33 did not respond, and 33 responded, of whom 29 agreed to participate (29/66 = 44% of those contacted). Of these, 24 (83%) strongly agreed with the patient's death being compassionate and dignified, one moderately agreed, one mildly agreed, one was neutral and two strongly disagreed. Items associated with greater satisfaction included: the process of WLS being well explained, WLS proceeding as expected, patient appearing comfortable, family/friends prepared for the decision, appropriate person initiating discussion, adequate privacy during WLS, chance to voice concerns. The study suggests factors that are important to consider in ensuring family comfort with the process of withdrawing life support.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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