Critical Care and Emergency Department Nurses’ Perceptions and Recommendations Regarding Risks, Challenges, and Facilitators of Family Presence During Resuscitation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family presence during resuscitation (FPDR) represents a vital yet complex aspect of critical care, blending ethical, emotional, and clinical dimensions to enhance family engagement. Although FPDR offers significant benefits, such as fostering closure and transparency, addressing health care providers' concerns about potential disruptions and workflow challenges is essential to its effective and equitable implementation. OBJECTIVES: This article investigated critical care and emergency nurses' perceived risks and challenges of FPDR and barriers to implementing FPDR, as well as suggested measures to enhance the implementation of this care approach. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was utilized using purposeful sampling to recruit critical care and emergency nurses from Midwestern US hospitals. Participants were interviewed using Zoom. RESULTS: Twenty-one nurses participated, predominantly female, White/non-Hispanic, with 1 to 25 years of experience and mostly bachelor-level education. The study identified 3 themes: risks and challenges of FPDR, barriers to its implementation, and recommendations for its facilitation. DISCUSSION: Participants highlighted barriers, challenges, and risks to FPDR, alongside facilitators such as institutional support, education, communication training, clear policies, family-related factors, assessment of family readiness, and designating a support person. Addressing these barriers and utilizing facilitators through education and strategic management can improve FPDR awareness and implementation in critical and emergency 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it