Measuring patient outcomes in palliative care: a reliability and validity study of the Support Team Assessment Schedule
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports the process and results of a psychometric evaluation of a clinical audit tool, the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS), used to measure outcomes of palliative care. The STAS was developed in London, UK to audit community palliative care services provided by a support team. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the STAS when introduced in a different setting and with different populations from those for which it had been designed. Evaluation of the STAS was completed using multidisciplinary team members, patients and families from a palliative care unit and an oncology unit of a large urban Canadian teaching hospital. The results from the reliability tests revealed a lack of consistency in the use of the tool by team members with simulated patients in clinical scenarios. The validity analysis highlighted the differences between patients, families and health care professionals' perceptions of the same clinical situation. This study provided a valuable perspective on using a previously developed clinical audit tool in different patient populations and clinical settings. Recommendations for future use of the tool are offered.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it