Conditions facilitating “good palliative care” in intensive care units: Nurses’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aging population, the complexity and irreversibility of certain conditions lead to the deaths of 20 % of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU). However, in Quebec, as elsewhere in America, few of them currently receive palliative care. Method: inspired by a conceptual model considering nursing as a moral practice, this phenomenological study was conducted in four phases: focus groups (n=6) observation sessions (n=6) followed by individual interviews and group validation activities (n=5). In its first part, this study shows that through several caring behaviours, “good palliative care“ in the ICU is manifested by the consideration of six dimensions of the person, physical, relational, psychological, moral, social and spiritual. This article presents the second part of this study and reveals three main themes summarizing the conditions facilitating “good the palliative care“ according to ICU nurses: Sharing a common vision enhanced by a collective and specific palliative care knowledge, an informed and concerted decisionmaking process in a favourable organisational and physical environment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".