Nurses’ experience with palliative sedation procedures in line with the 2005 Swiss guidelines: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many international studies have shown that the process of palliative sedation in an end-of-life context can be an adverse, even emotionally distressing experience for nurses. However, to the best of our knowledge, the experience of nurses working in palliative care in Switzerland has never been explored. The purpose of our study was, therefore, to understand and describe nurses' experience with the process of palliative sedation in line with the Swiss guidelines developed in 2005. We opted for an exploratory qualitative monocentric study using comprehensive individual interviews to achieve this objective. A total of 10 nurses were approached, and nine agreed to take part. After the interviews were transcribed, eight were ultimately included in the analysis. This analysis shows that nurses' attitudes toward the process of palliative sedation tended to be hesitant, resistant, or confident and that this was linked to the length of time they had worked in palliative care. These findings suggest that the 2005 Swiss guidelines do not protect nurses against the uncertainty related to process of palliative sedation. A national comprehensive multicentric study therefore needs to be developed to consolidate these results.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".