Perceptions of healthcare professionals about the presence of family members during cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The inclusion of families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation procedures is a clinical challenge. Families are often overlooked in resuscitation protocols aimed at interventions by an interprofessional team, which includes physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and orderlies. The existing scientific literature has relatively little to say about the perception of the interprofessional team as to the inclusion of families during resuscitation Objective: The goal of this integrative review is to explore existing papers on the perception of members of an interprofessional team with regard to the presence of family members during emergency room cardiopulmonary resuscitation procedures. Method: This integrative review of the literature was carried out using the five-step method of Whittemore & Knafl (2005) comprising problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis, and presentation of a summary of the data. The research strategy focused on three key concepts: interprofessional, family and resuscitation. Scientific papers were found through the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute ( JBI). To be included Conclusion: The results of this integrative review offer guidelines for improving the practice of inclusion of families during cardiopulmonary resuscitation procedures. Particular attention should be paid to the initial and continuing training of health professionals. Furthermore, this article allows for an initial reflection among managers and decision makers to promote a collaborative culture as well as a patient-centred approach. Keywords: interprofessional team, resuscitation, emergency department, family, integrative review
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 | 0.025 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".