When the adrenaline wears off: the arduous passion of emergency resuscitation nursing Nurses’ experiences of in-hospital resuscitation events and clinical event debriefing in an adult emergency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore nurses’ experiences of in-hospital resuscitation events and clinical event debriefing in an adult emergency. Using a qualitative exploratory design, emergency nurses from an urban tertiary hospital located in Western Canada were invited to participate in a semi-structured, digitally recorded, 1:1 interview. Eight nurses volunteered to participate. The digital recordings were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts and the researcher’s reflective journals were reiteratively read using content analysis. Four themes were identified: (1) emergency nurses’ experiences of resuscitation – ‘The adrenaline rush,’ (2) emergency room nurses’ experiences post-resuscitation – ‘When the adrenaline wears off’ and ‘The arduous passion of emergency room nursing,’ (3) emergency nurses’ perspectives of clinical event debriefing, and (4) emergency nurses’ recommendations for future practice and resources. Participants expressed devotion to their profession, emergency team, and patients. Participants described negative psychological consequences resulting from providing resuscitation care, which had profound effects on their personal and professional lives. Moral distress and secondary trauma stress arose despite current resources, which were reported to be inconsistently implemented. Participants identified gaps in supportive measures related to resuscitation events. Benefits, barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for clinical event debriefing along with other recommendations for future practices to support emergency healthcare teams were identified. Improved staffing resources, a mentorship program for emergency nurses, multidisciplinary education for resuscitation teams, and public awareness describing emergency department teams’ demands were recommended. Implementing supportive measures for emergency personnel is required for their well-being, and in the best interest of the patients, families, and healthcare organization.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".