Relational ethics of delirium care: Findings from a hospice ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delirium, a common syndrome in terminally ill people, presents specific challenges to a good death in end-of-life care. This paper examines the relational engagement between hospice nurses and their patients in a context of end-of-life delirium. Ethnographic fieldwork spanning 15 months was conducted at a freestanding residential hospice in eastern Canada. A shared value system was apparent within the nursing community of hospice; patients' comfort and dignity were deemed most at stake and therefore commanded nurses' primary attention. This overarching commitment to comfort and dignity shaped all of nursing practice in this hospice, including practices related to end-of-life delirium. The findings of this study elaborate the ways in which hospice nurses interpreted and responded to the discomfort of their patients in delirium, as well as the efforts they made to understand their patients' subjective experiences and to connect with them in supportive ways. In addition to what is already known about clinical assessment and treatment of delirium in palliative care settings, the findings of this study offer points of reflection for nurses anywhere who are contending with the relational challenges that delirium presents in end-of-life care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".