Informing Culturally Safe Advance Care Planning: An Interpretive Descriptive Study of Internationally Educated Nurses in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundMaintaining cultural safety during advance care planning (ACP) discussions is an essential component of holistic care provision. Most nurses feel unprepared to engage in ACP and the current literature offers limited recommendations on how nurses can lead culturally safe ACP discussions. Internationally educated nurses (IENs) have unique personal and professional experiences to address this gap.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to understand IENs' contributions to culturally safe ACP and its implications to nursing practice and ACP policy.MethodsAn interpretive descriptive approach was undertaken. Ten IENs working in Ontario, Canada were individually interviewed using a semi-structured guide to understand their perspectives and experiences of engagement in culturally safe ACP practices.ResultsIENs utilized various approaches that were reflected in three actions: practicing cultural humility, utilizing a cautious approach, and empowering clients and families. IENs engaged in intrapersonal and interpersonal cultural humility practices to recognize the unique influence of one's culture on the ACP process. Establishing trust in the nurse-client relationship and cautiously approaching ACP conversations was recognized as important in maintaining cultural safety. IENs also empowered clients by addressing knowledge deficits, misconceptions about ACP, and informing them of their decision-making rights.ConclusionNurses require education and resources to carry out culturally safe ACP. Education should begin at the undergraduate level and include self-engagement in ACP and cultural humility training. Practicing nurses need ACP training and clear standards/guidelines. There is an opportunity for healthcare organizations and professional/governing nursing bodies to collaborate on developing culturally safe ACP guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".