PP304 Topic: AS05–End of Life: Palliative Care/Organ Donation/Ethics/Spirituality & Wellness/Other: EMOTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES UTILIZED BY CANADIAN PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE UNIT INTERPROFESSIONAL CLINICIANS CARING FOR CHILDREN AT THE END OF LIFE: AN EXPLORATORY QUALITATIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims & Objectives: Caring for children at end of life is a reality of practice in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Learning how to make sense of death at work is necessary for all PICU professionals. This study examined the emotional experiences of work exposure to death from the perspective of interprofessional clinicians. Methods: This exploratory, semi-structured interview study of interprofessional clinicians working in Canadian PICUs was grounded in interpretive phenomenology. We recruited clinicians through an intake form circulated via professional networks and purposively sampled respondents for maximum variation of profession, career stage, province, and self-identification as Black, Indigenous, and/or a person of colour. Two team members independently, inductively coded interview transcripts; iterative thematic analysis was used to generate themes. Results: Fifteen PICU clinicians informed three themes identified as influential in how clinicians made sense of death at work. 1) Death context: emotional impacts varied by contextual factors (e.g., unexpected death; family reactions). 2) Perceptions of professional performance: perceived ability to do a “good” job in accordance with personal and professional values. 3) Access to resources: access to support varied (e.g., team debriefs), with physiotherapists and social workers reporting limited access. Although clinicians shared many strategies and resources for managing emotions, the ability to apply these strategies was impacted by environmental constraints (e.g., pace of work, under-staffing). Conclusions: Clinicians were emotionally impacted by exposure to death at work and encountered varied access to supports. PICU leaders should consider who may be left out of unit-level supports and advocate for organizational-level interventions to reduce environmental constraints. Keywords: qualitative, emotional labour, pediatric critical care, interprofessional team, end of life
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".