Constructing Good Nursing Practice for Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: An Interpretive Descriptive Study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses play a central role in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada. However, we know little about nurses' experiences with this new end-of-life option. The purpose of this study was to explore how nurses construct good nursing practice in the context of MAiD. This was a qualitative interview study using Interpretive Description. Fifty-nine nurses participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Data were analyzed inductively. The findings illustrated the ways in which nurses constructed artful practice to humanize what was otherwise a medicalized event. Registered nurses and nurse practitioners described creating a person-centered MAiD process that included establishing relationship, planning meticulously, orchestrating the MAiD death, and supporting the family. Nurses in this study illustrated how a nursing gaze focused on relationality crosses the moral divides that characterize MAiD. These findings provide an in-depth look at what constitutes good nursing practice in MAiD that can support the development of best practices.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it