Nurses' Perceptions of Practice Supports Related to Medical Assistance in Dying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the inception of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada in 2016, the health care system continues to refine MAiD delivery models. The frameworks informing nursing practice related to MAiD are subject to variability across the country, leading to nursing role ambiguity and barriers in relational practice. Using critical incident technique, this qualitative research study explores the experiences of 7 Canadian nurses engaging with patients seeking MAiD. Semistructured interviews were conducted to understand the nurses' perceptions of the helping, hindering, and desired elements of current nursing practice supports within the context of MAiD. Eighteen significant incidents were included in the data analysis. Findings demonstrate that gaps in practice support exist related to nursing role clarity, educational support to enrich therapeutic communication skills, and staff-focused resources, such as debriefing and improved communication networks. Understanding nursing experiences within this context highlights the need for more consistent nursing practice frameworks and clinical practice supports to facilitate improved therapeutic relationships and patient care.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".