MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944699677 · doi:10.1177/1527154419845407

Medical Assistance in Dying: A Review of Canadian Nursing Regulatory Documents

2019· review· en· W2944699677 on OpenAlex
Barbara Pesut, Sally Thorne, Megan Stager, Catharine J. Schiller, Christine Penney, Carolyn Hoffman, Madeleine Greig, Josette Roussel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Politics & Nursing Practice · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nurses AssociationColumbia CollegeUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingLegislationContext (archaeology)Health careMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's legalization of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016 has had important implications for nursing regulators. Evidence indicates that registered nurses perform key roles in ensuring high-quality care for patients receiving MAiD. Further, Canada is the first country to recognize nurse practitioners as MAiD assessors and providers. The purpose of this article is to analyze the documents created by Canadian nursing regulatory bodies to support registered nurse and nurse practitioner practice in the political context of MAiD. A search of Canadian provincial and territorial websites retrieved 17 documents that provided regulatory guidance for registered nurses and nurse practitioners related to MAiD. Responsibilities of registered nurses varied across all documents reviewed but included assisting in assessment of patient competency, providing information about MAiD to patients and families, coordinating the MAiD process, preparing equipment and intravenous access for medication delivery, coordinating and informing health care personnel related to the MAiD procedure, documenting nursing care provided, supporting patients and significant others, and providing post death care. Responsibilities of nurse practitioners were identified in relation to existing legislation. Safety concerns cited in these documents related to ensuring that nurses understood their boundaries in relation to counseling versus informing, administering versus aiding, ensuring safeguards were met, obtaining informed consent, and documenting. Guidance related to conscientious objection figured prominently across documents. These findings have important implications for system level support for the nursing role in MAiD including ongoing education and support for nurses' moral decision making.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.217
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.217
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0030.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.228
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it