Moral distress in critical care nursing practice: A concept analysis
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
AIM: To provide a critical analysis of the concept of moral distress (MD) in critical care (CC) nursing. BACKGROUND: Despite extensive inquiry pertaining to the legitimacy of MD within nursing discourse, some authors still question its relevancy to the profession. However, amid the global COVID-19 pandemic, MD is generating a significant amount of discussion anew, warranting the further exploration of the concept within CC nursing to provide clarity and expand on the definition. DESIGN: Rodger's Evolutionary Concept Analysis method was used to guide this analysis. METHODS: Related terms, attributes, antecedents, and consequences of MD were identified using current literature. RESULTS: The results of this analysis demonstrate strong congruence between the attributes, antecedents, and negative consequences pertaining to MD. However, a new theme has emerged from this review of the contemporary literature, highlighting the potential unexpected positive outcomes perceived by nurses who experience MD, including the provision of better care, increased levels of empathy, and enhanced opportunities for ethical reflection.
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 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| 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 it