Current End-of-Life Care Needs and Care Practices in Acute Care Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A descriptive-comparative study was undertaken to examine current end-of-life care needs and practices in hospital. A chart review for all 1,018 persons who died from August 1, 2008 through July 31, 2009 in two full-service Canadian hospitals was conducted. Most decedents were elderly (73.8%) and urbanite (79.5%), and cancer was the most common diagnosis (36.2%). Only 13.8% had CPR performed at some point during this hospitalization and 8.8% had CPR immediately preceding death, with 87.5% having a DNR order and 30.8% providing an advance directive. Most (97.3%) had one or more life-sustaining technologies in use at the time of death. These figures indicate, when compared to those in a similar mid-1990s Canadian study, that impending death is more often openly recognized and addressed. Technologies continue to be routinely but controversially used. The increased rate of end-stage CPR from 2.9% to 8.8% could reflect a 1994+ shift of expected deaths out of 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".