Availability of Services in Ontario Hospices and Hospitals Providing Inpatient Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most Canadians die in inpatient settings. Our aim was to determine the availability of medical services, programs, and care for common palliative procedures, in hospices, palliative care units (PCUs), and hospital medical wards (MWs) providing inpatient palliative care in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We identified facilities providing inpatient palliative care using the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) and Hospice Association of Ontario (HAO) websites. An electronic survey was sent to the person responsible for palliative care at each facility. We compared services available among the three types of units, using Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Of 128 surveys sent, 102 (80%) were completed and returned, from 58 MWs, 31 PCUs, and 13 hospices. MWs were the most common location of palliative care overall, particularly in rural areas. PCUs were most likely to provide care for common procedures (e.g., tracheostomy, nephrostomy; p<0.01); methadone for pain management (p<0.0001); and palliative radiation (p<0.01). MWs were most likely to offer intravenous chemotherapy and antibiotics (p<0.01). Transfusions were available in most PCUs and MWs, but only in one hospice (p<0.0001). Hospices were most likely to provide complementary therapies. Lack of financial support and human resources were the most frequent perceived barriers to providing quality palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability of available services depending on the setting where inpatient palliative care is provided. Further financial support and resources are required to ensure consistent high quality of care in both urban and rural areas.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".