Sedation for Delirium and Other Symptoms in Terminally Ill Patients in Edmonton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of sedation and the management of delirium and other difficult symptoms in terminally ill patients in Edmonton has been reported previously. The focus of this study was to assess the prevalence in the Edmonton region of difficult symptoms requiring sedation at the end of life. Data were collected for 50 consecutive patients at each of (a) the tertiary palliative care unit, (b) the consulting palliative care program at the Royal Alexandra Hospital (acute care), and (c) three hospice inpatient units in the city. Patients on the tertiary palliative care unit were significantly younger. Assessments confirmed the more problematic physical and psychosocial issues of patients in the tertiary palliative care unit. These patients had more difficult pain syndromes and required significantly higher doses of daily opioids. Approximately 80% of patients in all three settings developed delirium prior to death. Pharmacological management of this problem was needed by 40% in the acute care setting, and by 80% in the tertiary palliative care unit. The patients sedated varied from 4% in the hospice setting to 10% in the tertiary palliative care unit. Of the 150 patients, nine were sedated for delirium, one for dyspnea. The prevalence of delirium and other symptoms requiring sedation in our area is relatively low compared to others reported in the literature. Demographic variability between the three Edmonton settings highlights the need for caution in comparing results of different palliative care groups. It is possible that some variability in the use of sedation internationally is due to cultural differences. The infrequent deliberate use of sedation in Edmonton suggests that improved management has resulted in fewer distressing symptoms at the end of life. This is of benefit to patients and to family members who are with them during this time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".