Patient-centred and family-centred care of critically ill patients who are potential organ donors: a qualitative study protocol of family member perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In a patient-centred and family-centred approach to organ donation, compassion is paramount. Recent guidelines have called for more research, interventions and approaches aimed at improving and supporting the families of critically ill patients. The objective of this study is to help translate patient-centred and family-centred care into practice in deceased organ donation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a national, qualitative study of family members of deceased organ donors in Canada. We will include family members who had been approached regarding an organ donation decision, including those who agreed and declined, at least 2 months and no later than 3 years after the patients' death. Data collection and analysis is ongoing and will continue until September 2020 to include approximately 250 participants. Family members will be identified and recruited from provincial organ donation organisation databases. Four experienced qualitative researchers will conduct telephone interviews in English or French with audio-recording for subsequent transcription. The research team will develop a codebook iteratively through this process using inductive methods, thus generating themes directly from the dataset. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Local research ethics boards (REB) at all participating sites across Canada have approved this protocol. The main REB involved is the Ottawa Health Science Network REB. Data collection began in August 2018. Publication of results is anticipated in 2021. Study findings will help improve healthcare provider competency in caring for potential organ donors and their families and improve organ donation consent rates. Findings will also help with the development of educational materials for a competency-based curriculum for critical care residents.
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 | 0.094 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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".