MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396499119 · doi:10.5737/23688653-3311420

Barriers and facilitators in the provision of palliative care in critical care: A qualitative descriptive study of nurses’ perspectives

2022· article· en· W4396499119 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lisa M. Vaughn, Anna Santos Salas

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œCanadian journal of critical care nursing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Nurses Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careNursingThematic analysisCritical care nursingEnd-of-life careQualitative researchMedicineIntensive careIntensive care unitDescriptive researchPsychologyHealth careSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intensive care units are providing increasing amounts of palliative care. Accordingly, integrating palliative care as a component of comprehensive critical care has been identified as a necessity. The purpose of this study was to explore what critical care nurses perceive as barriers and facilitators in the provision of palliative care in the critical care setting. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study between 2016 and 2017. Eleven critical care nurses working within an intensive care unit in a tertiary care western Canadian hospital participated in this study. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with each participant and data was interpreted using thematic analysis. Key barriers and facilitators identified were related to communication, end-of-life decision making, the life- saving mentality of the ICU, exposure to palliative care education, and the strengths and perils of the critical care environment. The results of this study provide insight into the initiatives and resources that are required to enhance the provision of palliative care in the critical care setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œCanadian journal of critical care nursingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207