Application of nursing presence to family‐centered care: Supporting nursing practice in pediatric oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In pediatric care settings, family-centered care (FCC) is an integral way to ensure family involvement in their child's care and has been known to improve health outcomes and families' psychosocial well-being. Similarly, nursing presence is deemed beneficial in the formation of authentic nurse-patient relationships and is known to facilitate healing and improve satisfaction for the patient and their family. The objective of this article is to explore how nursing presence supports FCC by closely examining the four concepts of FCC as described by Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care: dignity and respect, information sharing, participation, and collaboration. A case study is also presented to demonstrate how nursing presence can be applied in FCC, when caring for a pediatric oncology patient. CONCLUSION: Nursing presence is essential in FCC since it plays a key role in the formation of relationships, a fundamental element in the four concepts. Attributes of nursing presence can be interwoven in the FCC framework and have positive clinical, social, and emotional outcomes for the patient and family. Although literature has explored associations between FCC and nursing presence, there is need for more scientific research to justify this argument to support the improvement of quality of family nursing care and strengthen the FCC model. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The four concepts of FCC lay a foundation for a model of care that can be enhanced by nursing presence, potentially providing a remedy for depersonalization of healthcare by improving nurse patient relationships in pediatric care settings. Nursing presence becomes less ambiguous when enacted in a FCC framework, revealing attributes that may be cultivated in family nursing to improve therapeutic relationships among nurses and family caregivers.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".