Role of the Nursing Professional in Euthanasia: A Qualitative Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Until the date of the search, Euthanasia was legally accepted in 5 countries: the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada and Colombia. Objective We aimed to identify the role of nurses in euthanasia based on articles published both nationally and internationally between 2014 and 2022. Methods Qualitative and quantitative studies, editorials, literature reviews and Colombian regulations were included. Publications that did not meet the criteria of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement and the Spanish Critical Appraisal Skills Programme were excluded. In total, 57 articles were evaluated and 19 were selected. Appropriate copyright principles were followed in accordance with Colombian Law 23 of 1982. Results With the data obtained, 4 thematic categories were developed as follows: reception and management of euthanasia requests and regulations in Colombia; emotional accompaniment and effective communication with the patient and family; participation in euthanasia preparations and administration of medications; and management of requests and administration of medications. Conclusion Nursing plays an important role in the care of the patient requesting euthanasia, from the reception and management of the request to the administration of the lethal drugs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".