Personalizing Death in the Intensive Care Unit: The 3 Wishes Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dying in the complex, efficiency-driven environment of the intensive care unit can be dehumanizing for the patient and have profound, long-lasting consequences for all persons attendant to that death. OBJECTIVE: To bring peace to the final days of a patient's life and to ease the grieving process. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study. SETTING: 21-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit. PARTICIPANTS: Dying patients and their families and clinicians. INTERVENTION: To honor each patient, a set of wishes was generated by patients, family members, or clinicians. The wishes were implemented before or after death by patients, families, clinicians (6 of whom were project team members), or the project team. MEASUREMENTS: Quantitative data included demographic characteristics, processes of care, and scores on the Quality of End-of-Life Care-10 instrument. Semistructured interviews of family members and clinicians were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative description was used to analyze them. RESULTS: Participants included 40 decedents, at least 1 family member per patient, and 3 clinicians per patient. The 159 wishes were implemented and classified into 5 categories: humanizing the environment, tributes, family reconnections, observances, and "paying it forward." Scores on the Quality of End-of-Life Care-10 instrument were high. The central theme from 160 interviews of 170 persons was how the 3 Wishes Project personalized the dying process. For patients, eliciting and customizing the wishes honored them by celebrating their lives and dignifying their deaths. For families, it created positive memories and individualized end-of-life care for their loved ones. For clinicians, it promoted interprofessional care and humanism in practice. LIMITATION: Impaired consciousness limited understanding of patients' viewpoints. CONCLUSION: The 3 Wishes Project facilitated personalization of the dying process through explicit integration of palliative and spiritual care into critical care practice. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hamilton Academy of Health Science Research Organization, Canadian Intensive Care Foundation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".