Effectiveness of the Liverpool care pathway for the dying in residential care homes: An exploratory, controlled before-and-after study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways aim to ensure that individuals receive appropriate evidence-based care and interventions, with the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient focusing on end of life. However, controlled studies of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, particularly outside of cancer settings, are lacking. AIM: To compare the effects of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient and usual care on patients' symptom distress and well-being during the last days of life, in residential care homes. DESIGN: Exploratory, controlled before-and-after study. During a 15-month baseline, usual care was carried out in two areas. During the following 15-months, usual care continued in the control area, while residential care home staff implemented Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient use in the intervention area. The intervention was evaluated by family members completing retrospective symptom assessments after the patient's death, using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Views of Informal Carers - Evaluation of Services. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients who died at all 19 residential care homes in one municipality in Sweden. RESULTS: Shortness of breath (estimate = -2.46; 95% confidence interval = -4.43 to -0.49) and nausea (estimate = -1.83; 95% confidence interval = -3.12 to -0.54) were significantly reduced in Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in patients in the intervention compared to the control area. A statistically significant improvement in shortness of breath was also found on the Views of Informal Carers - Evaluation of Services item (estimate = -0.47; 95% confidence interval = -0.85 to -0.08). CONCLUSION: When implemented with adequate staff training and support, the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient may be a useful tool for providing end-of-life care of elderly people at the end of life in non-cancer settings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".