Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing school can be a challenging time for students. Resuscitation events are highly stressful situations that may be encountered by nursing students in clinical settings. Although resuscitation events are essential life-saving interventions for the patient in critical conditions, these experiences can impact the education of nursing students by offering unique learning opportunities in addition to emotional challenges. While the literature explores the outcomes of the resuscitation event, there is a gap in the literature on how nursing students perceive and respond emotionally to these critical situations. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore nursing students' perceived feelings experienced during their first resuscitation event. Participants were recruited from a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree program located at a University in the Mid-Atlantic area of the United States. Convenience sampling was used. Seven senior-level nursing students were recruited. Data was collected by a focus group interview. Five themes emerged from the coded analysis of the data. The themes include traumatic reaction, novice role, bad experience, lasting impression, and lack of knowledge. This research highlights the emotional experiences of nursing students during their first resuscitation events, emphasizing the need for comprehensive support and training. By addressing the emotional and educational needs of students, nursing educators can foster the development of skilled, confident, and compassionate nurses capable of navigating the complexities of resuscitation events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.037 |
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".