Comparative study of perceptions of family members to the end-of-life care in residential care facilities and hospitals in Tampere, Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Current trend in long-term care (LTC) is to bring the care to the place where the person lives and to avoid unnecessary transitions. The purpose of the study was to find out family members’ opinions about the quality of end-of-life care in LTC compared to care in hospitals.Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to the family members of 168 residents, who had died during the year 2012 in LTC in Tampere, southern Finland.Results: A total of 97 family members (58%) returned the questionnaire. Eighty-two percent of the residents suffered from dementia. Family members seemed to be more satisfied with the care if the resident had died in LTC. Family members reported that residents who had died in LTC were more often kept clean (80% vs. 55%; p = .020), their dignity was maintained more often (84% vs. 56%; p = .021) and their wishes considering their care were acknowledged better (82% vs. 50%; p = .033) compared to the residents that died in a hospital. Residents who died in LTC suffered also less from agitation (32% vs. 60%; p = .047). The trend in the prevalence of other signs and symptoms and the prevalence of non-palliative interventions was lower, if the resident had died in LTC.Conclusions: Family members perceived the quality of end-of-life care given in residential care facilities to be at least as good, or, in some cases, better than the quality of end-of-life care given in a hospital.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".