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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".