The advocacy role of nurses in cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The decision whether to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation may sometimes be ethically complex. While studies have addressed some of these issues, along with the role of nurses in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, most have not considered the importance of nurses acting as advocates for their patients with respect to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: To explore what the nurse's advocacy role is in cardiopulmonary resuscitation from the perspective of patients, relatives, and health professionals in the Basque Country (Spain). RESEARCH DESIGN: An exploratory critical qualitative study was conducted from October 2015 to March 2016. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. PARTICIPANTS: Four discussion groups were held: one with patients and relatives (n = 8), two with nurses (n = 7 and n = 6, respectively), and one with physicians (n = 5). ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Approval was obtained from the Basque Country Clinical Research Ethics Committee. FINDINGS: Three significant themes were identified: (a) accompanying patients during end of life in a context of medical dominance, (b) maintaining the pact of silence, and (c) yielding to legal uncertainty and concerns. DISCUSSION: The values and beliefs of the actors involved, as well as pre-established social and institutional rules reduced nurses' advocacy to that of intermediaries between the physician and the family within the hospital environment. On the contrary, in primary health care, nurses participated more actively within the interdisciplinary team. CONCLUSION: This study provides key information for the improvement and empowerment for ethical nursing practice in a cardiac arrest, and provides the perspective of patients and relatives, nurses and physicians.
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 | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".