Sustainable Practice Improvements: Impact of the Comprehensive Advanced Palliative Care Education (CAPCE) Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an education program designed to improve palliative care practice through the development of workplace hospice palliative care resources (PCRs), and its impact on knowledge transfer and longer-term changes to clinical practice. Evaluation methods included pre- and post-program questionnaires, and a survey of learners' (n=301) perceptions of program learning strategies. Interviews (n=21) were conducted with a purposeful sample of PCRs and representatives from their work sites. Ratings of the sessions indicated that they were relevant to learners' clinical practice. At follow up, the majority of learners (83%) continued to serve as PCRs. Many positive effects were identified, including enhanced pain and symptom management, staff education, and development of care policies and guidelines. Management support, particularly the prioritization of palliative care and staff development, were factors facilitating sustained implementation. These findings highlight the importance of multimodal learning strategies and supportive work environments in the development of PCRs to enhance palliative care practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".