An exploration of family carers’ experience of respite services in one specialist palliative care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changing patterns of care for terminally ill people mean that 90% of patients in the UK now spend the majority of their last year of life at home. It is now widely accepted that supporting individuals to die at home relies heavily on the availability of family carers to provide the majority of the care needed. However, one of the most common reasons for unplanned admissions near the end of life is carers' inability to provide continuing care. One strategy to overcome these challenges has been to offer planned respite care. Despite recent studies, in reality little is known about respite services for patients with life limiting illness, in particular how respite is experienced by the caregivers or to what extent respite services address their needs. METHODS: This prospective study, comprising mixed methods of data collection, explored the experiences of 25 family carers whose relative had been admitted to the local hospice for inpatient respite care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at two time points: pre- and post-respite. The Relative Stress Scale Inventory was administered at both interviews. RESULTS: Just over half of the sample were caring for a relative with a diagnosis of cancer (n=13); the majority of the others had a number of neurological conditions (n = 12). The data demonstrate that managing care for relatives with a life limiting illness was perceived to be hard work, both physically and mentally. Inpatient respite care was considered important as it enabled family carers to have a break from the ongoing care-giving responsibilities, as well as being an opportunity to experience 'normal life' independently. The majority of family carers felt that their expectations of respite for themselves had been achieved. The respite service was well evaluated in relation to: standard of nursing care; alternative facilities on offer, atmosphere; and other care homes. DISCUSSION: Currently, inpatient respite services are provided to two patient groups--those in the last year of life and those with a chronic life limiting illness. However, on closer analysis, the current model of service delivery, a two-week inpatient stay, may not be best suited to those caring for a relative in the last year of life. Similarly, it might be questioned whether an inpatient hospice is the most suitable setting for those patients needing supportive care, rather than specialist palliative care. The study has raised many issues that need to be considered in the support of carers caring for relatives with a life limiting illness with uncertain trajectories.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".