The Impact of Patient and Family Advisors on Critical Care Nurses’ Empathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if patient and family advisors' (PFAs) collaboration in an educational program could increase the empathy levels of intensive care unit (ICU) nurses. BACKGROUND: Data suggest that nurse empathy is on the decline. Ensuring that nurses consistently empathize with patients and families helps create positive patient experiences. METHODS: Thirty nurses participated in a PFA-designed educational intervention using simulation-based role playing. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) was used to measure empathy before and after the intervention. RESULTS: The TEQ empathy scores increased significantly after nurses completed the PFA-designed educational program. Younger nurses (<30 years) improved on average 3.03 ± 3.6 points compared with older nurses (>30 years), who improved, on average, only 0.43 ± 2.06 points (t24.4 = 2.46, P = .021). For the changes in TEQ scores from preintervention to postintervention, age was significantly associated with improvements in TEQ scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and family advisors can positively impact empathy among ICU nurses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".