Patient experiences of cardiac surgery and nursing care: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the Narrative Review was to explore the patient experience following cardiac surgery and nursing care. Methodology: A Narrative Review was used to integrate the findings of different types of evidence in order to gain an understanding of the patient's experience of cardiac surgery and nursing care. Three key databases were searched; Cumulative Index to Nursing Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), British Nursing Index (BNI) and Medline. The review involved critiquing the methodological quality of included studies, thematic analysis and synthesis of findings. Conclusions: Patients experience physical discomfort and pain following cardiac surgery. The psychological experience of cardiac surgery is associated with negative emotions which are mostly related to weaning from mechanical ventilation and communication difficulties. Support from family is of high importance but patients value the support from other cardiac surgery patients. No studies intended to explore the experience of nursing care following cardiac surgery. However, patient experiences of nursing care were reported across the studies. Recommendations: Future research should specifically explore the experience of nursing care following cardiac surgery. Current PREMs Questionnaires are a step forward in patient experience measurement for cardiac surgery; however they are limited by their feedback method. Service improvement initiatives should utilise both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to obtain a multidimensional view of the patient 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".