Presencia de familiares durante la reanimación cardiopulmonar: perspectivas de pacientes, familiares y profesionales de la salud en el País Vasco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the perception of nurses, doctors, patients and family or relatives being present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in adult patients. DESIGN: A qualitative exploratory study and thematic analysis were developed. SITE: Primary Care, Hospital Care and Emergency Service of the Basque Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: The selection of the participants was made through intentional sampling. Four focus groups were developed: one of patients and family, 2 of nurses, and one of physicians. METHOD: Thematic analysis was performed. Triangulation techniques were used between investigators and investigator-participant member. The Open code 4.1 statistics software was used. RESULTS: Three significant categories were identified: the impact on the family; the weight of ethical and legal responsibility; power, place of death, and cultural assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: CPR is a social construct influenced by values which are situated in specific socio-cultural contexts. In this study, patients and family members describe the fear and resistance to being present during CPR. Health professionals consider that their decision is complex, and each case must be assessed independently, and patients and relatives must be integrated into decision-making. Future research should explore in greater depth the subjective experience of relatives who have witnessed CPR and the impact of contextual and sociocultural elements from the perspectives of relatives.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".