BRAIN DEATH: HEALTH TEAM’S EXPERIENCE WITH PARENTS OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective to understand the health team’s experience with parents of children and adolescents during the brain death protocol stages. Method a qualitative and exploratory research developed in two health institutions of high complexity and reference in the care of children and adolescents with polytrauma. Participants were health professionals from critical patient units. Data collection took place between October and December 2019 through semi-structured interviews. For content analysis, we used the software Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires as support. Results twenty-one professionals (physicians, nurses and nursing technicians) participated in the study. The general corpus consisted of 21 texts, separated into 123 segments, with the emergence of four classes. The study shows feelings of support and compassion at all brain death protocol stages. In the protocol opening stage, the team’s emotions are focused on the actions of clarifying and revealing information in this process, in addition to pointing out the need for the team to detail the step by step of the exams to be performed. In the communication of death stage, the feeling of being, caring for and welcoming the family relates to other feelings experienced by them. Conclusion the study reveals that the health team experiences unique feelings during the brain death protocol in the reality of children and adolescents, revealing the team’s concern with being with the family, paying attention and caring for the pain of loss.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".