The Volunteer Program in a Children's Hospice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canuck Place Children's Hospice (CPCH) is regarded as one of the leading pediatric palliative care systems in the world. Since 1995, it has been providing hospice care free of charge to children and their families living with life-threatening conditions. The pediatric palliative hospice is a relatively new practice in health care, in comparison to the longstanding adult model. As a result, development and implementation of volunteer programs in pediatric hospices is not currently represented in literature. With over 300 volunteers at present, CPCH has built a successful program that can serve as a model in pediatric volunteer services. OBJECTIVE: To present the unique volunteer roles and experience at CPCH, and share ways volunteers work to support the efforts of the clinical team. Strategies to address current challenges in the volunteer program are also addressed. DESIGN: Descriptive design. SETTING/SUBJECTS: A current CPCH volunteer discusses the volunteer program. Interviews were conducted with the founding volunteer director of CPCH and current volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: The volunteer program at CPCH fully embraces the life of each child and family. Volunteer selection is the groundwork for ensuring a cohesive work force, while training equips volunteers with the knowledge to carry out their role with confidence. Areas of improvement that have been recognized include offering effective feedback to volunteers and delivering adequate level of training for non-direct care roles. The talents of volunteers at CPCH are diverse, and CPCH aims to recognize and thank volunteers for their continuous contributions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".