Communication between nurses and family caregivers of hospitalised older persons: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To review the literature concerning the feelings, thoughts and behaviours of nurses and family caregivers of hospitalised older persons when they communicate with one another. BACKGROUND: Communication between nurses and family caregivers of hospitalised older persons is not always optimal. Improving the frequency and quality of this communication might be a way to make the most of available human capital in order to better care for hospitalised older people. DESIGN: A literature review was carried out of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-design studies relating to communication between nurses and family caregivers. Findings were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Family caregiver thoughts, feelings and behaviours relative to nurse control and authority, nurse recognition of their contribution, information received from and shared with nurses and care satisfaction could influence communication with nurses. Nurse thoughts regarding usefulness of family caregivers as care partners and their lack of availability to meet family caregiver demands could influence communication with family caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The thoughts, feelings and behaviours of family caregivers and nurses that might create positive or negative circular patterns of communication are evidenced. Further research is required to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses must be trained in how to communicate with family caregivers in order to form a partnership geared to preventing complications in hospitalised older persons. Results could be used to inform policy regarding the care of hospitalised older persons.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".